Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

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

I think I will fly just to die the next maps.

Admins, if you really look for a great competition with great battles put a real AAA on AF, just on Hollywood movies see a 3 fighters killing all over the AF.

By the way with all of this, you lock the Vya23 on Lags.

As a friend say, WHAT A JOKE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

666GIAP really like their 23mm... :) 

 

 

I believe TAW bugged on the last mission and all of the frontline airfields did not have any meaningfull AAA. In previous missions depots (when we were working on them) had full set of AAA defences as per usual.

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


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

666GIAP really like their 23mm... :) 

 

 

I believe TAW bugged on the last mission and all of the frontline airfields did not have any meaningfull AAA. In previous missions depots (when we were working on them) had full set of AAA defences as per usual.

Is not only that we like, the lagg is not the best fighter, why you take off the only good thing that it have?

You can use the gunpods on your BFs and you don´t loose more then a 5% as fighter or I am wrong? Limitations?

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

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.

The higher the numerical superiority of the side having landing aircraft-the more effective are the missions for the landing. Because the parties in the majority have the strength to : 1. cover their most important tank columns 2. strikes on the nearest enemy airfields as a preparation for their subsequent capture of the landing. 3. attacks on rear warehouses, reducing the number of enemy tanks in the columns and their anti-aircraft cover.  While the numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe was not so overwhelming-the impact of landing operations was not so much noticeable, because the red army air force had enough forces to patrol the possible points of landing. For example, in today's mission, in order to disrupt the landing operation to capture the Akhtyrskaya airfield, it would be necessary to attract all the available forces to block only the possibility of throwing out the landing.  In the current form, the opposition of the parties on the server is reduced to two things : 1. destruction of warehouses 2. vyvedenie down enemy airfields. And the Luftwaffe has nothing reasonable handicap, if not cheat. At the opposite ratio of forces at the Luftwaffe will not even have time to engage in amphibious operations-because there will be more urgent tasks and primarily have to restrain opponents on all fronts.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

why you take off the only good thing that it have?

 

Roll rate?

High damage resistance?

Stability at low speeds (especially with rapid flap deployment).

 

Let's not pretend that the Lagg3 is shit. It's got some pretty favourable aspects to it. There is a reason that it's flown by so many experienced pilots quite often exclusively, even when 'historically' better planes are available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

Roll rate?

High damage resistance?

Stability at low speeds (especially with rapid flap deployment).

 

Let's not pretend that the Lagg3 is shit. It's got some pretty favourable aspects to it. There is a reason that it's flown by so many experienced pilots quite often exclusively, even when 'historically' better planes are available.

 

 

Not completely right your position, the Lagg is a really good airplane, but you can´t compare the Lagg3, with F4, G2s or FW if you have this planes why we can´t have the 23mm cannon?

Now F4 can easy follow my yak1 ser69 in 6 turn and leave the combat unharmed .

 

You know why we used it, because if you give us a chance to shoot, that shoot will be determinant on the fight, why so many experienced blue pilots pick up gunpods, because if they have 1 change is game over for the red.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 There is a reason that it's flown by so many experienced pilots quite often exclusively

 

You know what that reason is? Vya23mm; other than that specially in TAW most pilots would choose even a MiG-3 instead.

 

Roll rate and damage resistance? Ask any pilot if you give them to choose between that, or=> speed + acceleration + rate of climb + dive speed limit + turn rate...what would they choose? I already know the answer.

2 hours ago, xJammer said:

666GIAP really like their 23mm

 

Nah, we are more of a MiG-3 and Yaks unit. You know what we like? Having good fights against good pilots in a fair competition; that’s why we liked TAW and that’s why we don’t understand such advantages given to one faction.

 

We are all veterans with more than 12 years participating in online wars, and some of us have tolerated so many LW spoiled fan boys over those years, that right  now have zero patience for them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

We are all veterans with more than 12 years participating in online wars, and some of us have tolerated so many LW spoiled fan boys over those years, that right  now have zero patience for them.

 

 

I guess its one of those cases where excessive experience clouds the better judgement ;) I think both sides made their arguments for or against keeping 23mm in the same category as 1ton bombs. Lets focus on other aspects of balance/gameplay, i.e. paras for airfield capture, weak AAA defences on airfields and depots and so forth. 

 

I also suggest to get some patience stocked up as without it comments tend to start getting less rational, emotional and borderline offensive. :) 

Edited by xJammer
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

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........

 

I think we are on a similar page.  We can't actually destroy train tracks so that component is missing. 

Russian rail systems weren't affected by the railway shipping issue as Germany was so (in-game) depot loss would not (historically) effect the Russian side.

However, it's reasonable to assume that Germany bombed every Russian-controlled rail line it didn't see as essential to capture intact instead.  

So, Yes. Maybe there should be a supply line component that limits how far heavy bombers could advance relative to the front lines and what could be brought to those forward fields should be limited by how well-supplied it is.  You CAN get the extra plane mods (big bombs, extra cannons, etc.) but you'd have to take off from farther back on the map. If you want a fighter with a standard setup and some small bombs, then you can use frontline fields.  Keep in mind however, that certain mods that could be efficiently packed onto trucks (gunpods, small bombs, airplane parts and motors and the like) would still be able to be moved all the way up to the front if enough trucks made it through.  Pe-2's, IL-2's, 110's, Hs-129s, Stukas, and, to some extent, heavy bombers like the Ju-88 and He-111 were able to run from frontline or close-to-the-front bases. 

 

Keep in mind that during the Battle of Britain, Axis bombers launched from airbases that weren't to far behind the French coast and did all their forming up and climbing before crossing the channel.  Of course, the channel itself was a great natural distance barrier and German AAA support and fighter cover was just too much for Britain to just 'hop over the ditch' and effectively raid these fields.  This just points out the possibility for 111's and 88's to operate more forward, but on the Eastern Front, I'm sure they were stationed farther back until logistics could move up and setup the defensive equipment needed.  Keep also in mind that, at least early on, the Blitzkrieg tankers and infantry often-times left their support supplies in the dust and struggling to catch up, so having more than fighters and Stukas operating close to the front would have been unlikely until the war 'settled in' and was going to be a more drawn out affair.

 

Eventually, if Russia gets a heavy bomber to work with, then it too would have certain restrictions on how far is feasible to realistically move it toward the front.  With their size and the fact that Russia had many well-supplied areas to the east that Germany just couldn't touch, there was no point in running them as front or even mid-line planes. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think you have read it all,  there goes xjammer asking others to stay on topic, rational, and not get offensive 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

Really man, relax your trolling a bit now, go and have fun ramming Pe2s after they landed, keep shooting at pilots hanging on their chutes even when their team is severely outnumbered; keep calling others stat-padders  when they don’t go in a one way trip suicide mission;  keep gaming the system all you want turning il2 into an arcade airquake...and let us, the mentally unstable guys who want to keep il2 and TAW as a flightsim enviroment,  find  the best way to have an even better experience for all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now is the first time I (as well as many other NA pilots, I guess) have a chance to play the current map since its start, and it is already almost lost. I guess the only way to have any impact there is to ignore sleep and work...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Ok, now is the first time I (as well as many other NA pilots, I guess) have a chance to play the current map since its start, and it is already almost lost. I guess the only way to have any impact there is to ignore sleep and work...

 

Well, no surprise, two of the three airfields captured by the German side were captured by - you guessed it - paratroopers! :).   It's like a big free get out of jail card in Monopoly.  No waiting for the tanks to make their move on the field over three missions, just go and get it.  Assuming we will have to wait until the next round to limit paratrooper effectiveness Kathon was hinting at.  Something else this map makes more difficult - the reduced number of airfields and the large space in between.  Looks like both sides are focusing on clobbering the frontline airfields.. makes for long flight times, yikes :).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The server has been stopped. The lack of AA on the airfields bug must be fixed. I will restart then the Kuban map.

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

When you think you have read it all,  there goes xjammer asking others to stay on topic, rational, and not get offensive 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

I have been doing this from the very start ;) 

 

3 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Really man, relax your trolling a bit now,

 

Disagreeing with you is not trolling.

 

3 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

go and have fun ramming Pe2s after they landed,

 

Nice one bringing up individual case that happened because the gunner shot out my stab while I was strafing the Pe2!

 

3 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

keep shooting at pilots hanging on their chutes

 

Had server not had the pilot resource and combat missions tied to pilots I guarantee you I wouldn't be wasting my time trying.

 

3 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

even when their team is severely outnumbered; keep calling others stat-padders  when they don’t go in a one way trip suicide mission;  keep gaming the system all you want turning il2 into an arcade airquake...

 

 

Well anyway, your post is again just an attempt to discredit someone who disagreed with you and attempted to explain to you why.

 

So let me explain to you how the server works. You have a set of aircraft and your team has a set of resources such as territory, aircraft, tanks or pilot lives and so on. Players then use these resources to attempt to win the map. Whichever side trades off some of their resources to gain monopoly in the other wins the map and subsequently game.

 

What I am trying to get at is that in TAW, contrary to your belief, life is a resource. And if you can spend life to gain an advantage in territory you are doing much better than a player who chooses to stay alive, sacrificing the opportunity for the victory.  I have nothing against stat-padders btw I completely understand that such people are motivated by personal streaks and roleplay over their own team's victory. Just remember that TAW victory condition is monopoly of a resource, not the size of one's streak or length of his or her experience bar.

 

Also if you do choose to take such risky missions (instead of choosing to prese your life at the expense of the victory) you eventually become quite competent at it!

 

3 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

and let us, the mentally unstable guys who want to keep il2 and TAW as a flightsim enviroment,  find  the best way to have an even better experience for all.

 

I do not believe unstable people, even if they recognise themselves as such, should be guiding direction of the server ;) However I do believe there are some groups in IL2 community that create roleplay missions. Those may be more suitable for your playstyle?

 

P.S. @=FPS=Cutlass is an example of a player who treats his life as a resource. Him and his group in teamspeak has repeatedly destroyed many of the blue tank columns and defences. I would say that he has done more towards his team's victory than your streak, Chimango.

 

 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not really into stat padding, but being this map will probably be over so soon, I think I'll farm combat missions and build my plane set for the next one.  

Share this post


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

..., I think I'll farm combat missions and build my plane set for the next one.  

 

I'm not sure it's working 100%, so don't count on it.  I had just earned a Yak-1b 127 on the previous map, but once the current Kuban map started, I had 0/1 Yak-1b 127 in my inventory, so it didn't appear to carry over.

Share this post


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

Had server not had the pilot resource and combat missions tied to pilots I guarantee you I wouldn't be wasting my time trying.

 

Whatever you say to justify, you're still an ........ for doing this. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I'm not sure it's working 100%, so don't count on it.  I had just earned a Yak-1b 127 on the previous map, but once the current Kuban map started, I had 0/1 Yak-1b 127 in my inventory, so it didn't appear to carry over.

Planes carry over to new maps but in this situation, Kuban map didn't load properly and after fixing by Kathon, planes were reset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys come on, why's server getting close? Is that so hard NOT TO CLOSE IT? i flew only for 4 days, and i cant wait 2 month untill it'll be open again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No panic - it will open up soon again. There was a big with the current mission that the airfields had no AAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PeterZvan said:

No panic - it will open up soon again. There was a big with the current mission that the airfields had no AAA

ok but when the mission will be over (German wins) the server will be closed for 1-2 month again?

Share this post


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

ok but when the mission will be over (German wins) the server will be closed for 1-2 month again?

No, still two more maps to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =LG=Mad_Mikhael said:

No, still two more maps to fly.

after, after it. How many time does server needs to start the company again?

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...