Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Red pilots -losing interest map after map- realize they have no chance to win TAW (again, for the 3rd time in a row), not under current unbalanced wining conditions with ju52s dropping cyborg paratroopers while VVS has nothing; and also the most demotivating the constant difference in server quorum favouring LW 2:1 map after map, mission after mission; always flying with -10 or -15 pilots. Remember, having this situation a couple of times might be fun, when it is a constant, it just becomes tedious and frustrating always being at the defensive.

 

That sums up my experience after Map 3, I lost all motivation to sit down and fly out some missions on TAW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another server stop will be on happy new year? There will be main holiday for red side. And it will be unfair to keep server running on 31-1 if now it stopped.

Edited by =KK=Des_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.512c4d52da1e94fb39787c296ea6988e.png

does seem a shame to stop the server. I get that christmas is likely to put a dent in organised org's particularly for the bigger ones, but the war must go on ;)

I know today is the special day in Germany, and perhaps most of mainland Europe ? but for the brits at least, we do that stuff tomorrow. Today is just another working day. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mi escuadrón, alterna el bando, una campaña de rojo, azul, rojo, azul, rojo, azul ...
Vuelo exclusivamente bombarderos (a veces Jabo , y rara vez combatientes).
Muchas veces volamos en grupo, dependiendo de los asientos disponibles.
Pero a veces hago vuelos  en solitario , y no por eso soy un Kamikace, como algunos de ustedes quieren  hacernos ver .
No todos los pilotos que hacen un vuelo  en solitario  son Kamikaces.
..... y por supuesto, aquellos que bombardeamos  bases a 6000m, atacamos puntos de defensa a 6000m, intentamos destruir trenes a 6000m ......... NO SOMOS KAMIKACES ...

Valorar  más vuestro  tiempo en volar y tratar de ayudar a vuestro  bando .

 

... cuando no es discutido por A ... es discutido por B.

 

 

 

 

 

My squad, alternates the side, a campaign of red one of blue, red, blue, red, blue .......
I fly exclusively bombers (sometimes JABOS, and rarely fighters).
Many times we fly in a group, depending on the seats that are available.
But sometimes I make flights alone, and not for that I am a Kamikace, as some of you want to see.
Not all the pilots that make a flight alone are Kamikaces.
..... and of course those who bombed bases at 6000m, we attacked defensive points at 6000m, we tried to destroy trains at 6000m ......... WE ARE NOT KAMIKACES ...

Value more your time in flying and try to help your side.

... when it is not discussed by A ..... it is discussed by B.


MERRY CHRISTMAS .

regards

 

 

 

 

 

 


FELIZ NAVIDAD . FELIZ NAVIDAD  ♥ ️

Saludos

Edited by Ala13_Antiguo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Considering my plane as a "potential" write off doesn't make it a "guaranteed" write off.  I do everything I can to make it as much of a "potential" return to base as I can. 

 

You don't do everything you can to make it as much of a potential return to base as you can, otherwise you would go with an escort. Simple.

 

Just now, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

"Nobody stops you from teaming up with your team." > Re-read my first sentence of the post you responded to.  Make sure you understand it this time.  Let me add that I team with the Cat Herd (randoms) as well.  Sometimes neither is around.

 

I don't know why you have to be disrespectful towards me but i guess thats the general way around here sadly. 

 

Just now, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

The issue I have is that you equate "risky" as "dumb".  Therefore it seems you want to penalize people willing to take risks that may pay off to be "smart" the same a those who take "dumb" risks.

 

I think our discussion is going in the wrong direction. I think the problem runs deeper than the recent case of suicide runs. I think there is a general problem with many Bomber pilots (or pilots in general) not caring about how many times they get killed or captured, all they worry about is bringing their bombs to the target. As i understand it, this is not in the spirit of TAW. 

 

In reality, there was a certain bond between bomber crews and their escort fighters for obvious reasons. Something i miss in TAW. In fact i often see people trying to divide both groups (if there are any groups to speak of in the first place). 

 

A serious question to you: Why are there so few escorts accompanying bombers? is it because of people considering it bothersome? is it because people don't care about increasing their survival rate? 

 

In my opinion, many bomber pilots don't really care as long as they hit their target.

 

Just now, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

"You aren't entitled to anything."  >  Likewise.  That includes trying to make rules that penalize others for playing in ways you disagree with.

I enjoy many servers.  I don't do stupid things that warrant banning, so I will continue to do so at my leisure. 

 

Exactly, i am not entitled to anything either. But i am not the one throwing a tantrum about wanting to play how i want. I am proposing changes to improve the gameplay which you are obviously free to disagree to. I am enjoying TAW either way so far.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TAW seems to have lost some of its charm in recent campaigns for me. There seems to be fewer targets in recent campaigns, and personally I think it is a shame that only front line airfields can be bombed. This forces fewer combat zones, making it much more difficult for both the solo bomber pilot and also the solo fighter pilots on defensive patrols. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ala13_Antiguo said:

But sometimes I make flights alone, and not for that I am a Kamikace, as some of you want to see.
Not all the pilots that make a flight alone are Kamikaces.
..... and of course those who bombed bases at 6000m, we attacked defensive points at 6000m, we tried to destroy trains at 6000m ......... WE ARE NOT KAMIKACES ...

Value more your time in flying and try to help your side.

 

This.
I can't understand why some people are thinking that lonely bombers are always kamikaze (maybe it's just an English problem for some posts, I don't know)...
Yes personally sometimes I did a few kamikaze runs, when it was really really needed (protecting a depot attacked by a tank column for example), but I also did a lot of lonely bombing runs and I have a survival rate at more than 90% on those "proper" runs (the only times I was shot down were by a lucky large caliber AA shot at more than 4-5k distance, can't do anything against that when it's not your lucky day...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -IRRE-Centx said:

 

This.
I can't understand why some people are thinking that lonely bombers are always kamikaze (maybe it's just an English problem for some posts, I don't know)...
Yes personally sometimes I did a few kamikaze runs, when it was really really needed (protecting a depot attacked by a tank column for example), but I also did a lot of lonely bombing runs and I have a survival rate at more than 90% on those "proper" runs (the only times I was shot down were by a lucky large caliber AA shot at more than 4-5k distance, can't do anything against that when it's not your lucky day...)

 

Yea there seems to be a misunderstanding. If you have a 90% survival rate, you won't be affected by any changes that are targeted at those suicide bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =11=Herne said:

image.png.512c4d52da1e94fb39787c296ea6988e.png

 

If anyone could pull off an Ace in a Flight while hanging from a parachute, it'd be Scharfi! Each reindeer counts as a separate AK, right?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

Yea there seems to be a misunderstanding. If you have a 90% survival rate, you won't be affected by any changes that are targeted at those suicide bombers.

 

 

A solo 190 with a 500Kg bomb slope bombs a depot at 600kph and escapes unscathed every time.  A flight of six Ju-87s execute a perfectly coordinated, realistic dive attack on the same depot and suffer 40-70% casualties every time.  The 190 is rewarded handsomely, the Ju-87s are punished and stop flying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

A solo 190 with a 500Kg bomb slope bombs a depot at 600kph and escapes unscathed every time.  A flight of six Ju-87s execute a perfectly coordinated, realistic dive attack on the same depot and suffer 40-70% casualties every time.  The 190 is rewarded handsomely, the Ju-87s are punished and stop flying.

 

Sorry i don't understand your point?

Share this post


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

 

Yea there seems to be a misunderstanding. If you have a 90% survival rate, you won't be affected by any changes that are targeted at those suicide bombers.

 

Excactly.........

 

There always seems to be people who want to complain without attempting to give solutions.

And those that do offer solutions are immediately attacked.

I've made a few suggestions, which i hope could be trialed to see how they work, as opposed to implemented in the whole campaign (in case they dont!!)

I believe they would help with number imbalance (both ways), reduce the effectiveness of bombers and para drops (without the need to cap the numbers, or nobble the planes),

assisting the loosing side (making it worth while joining even when out numbered heavily)

They would encourage better game play and reward those who do. They would even allow introduction of the U2 in a meaningful role!

 

And above all................ help to bring back the 'charm'

 

Have a Great Christmas.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Sorry i don't understand your point?

 

 

Your idea to punish death to stop gamey behavior on TAW is wrong-headed because the best tactics for survival on TAW are gamey.  Why reward the solo 190 and punish the flight of Ju-87s?  Why not attempt to create an environment where more realistic tactics work better?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TAW becomes the same old same old boring stuff, now with suicide bomb runs. The latter are happening for a reason as well - they are effective for the team.

 

What is more effective?

1 bomb run in a heavy bomber per 2hrs?

Or 10 bomb runs with half the bombload? 

It's incomplete design, it must get improved. 

 

If heavy bombers (high fuel and pre-defined fixed heavy loadouts) spawn at altitudes further backwards on the map, we will get several things:

 

More altitude combat. 

Larger groups flying heavy bombers more frequently. 

More bomber targets for fighters as well. 

More realism not for each individual but for the scenario. Heavy Bombers didn't climb from Frontline airfields. 

Proper Bomber sorties become more time-effective. 

 

Currently you have 2 hrs per round. .

15min spent logging in & assembling. 

30mins climb. 

20mins flight to target. 

15mins shallow dive back home to a Frontline AF. 

 

That only allows for 1 sortie. Starting within 1st hour of each round. It's bs. It's wrong. Suicide bombing is way more effective to the group. I see Peshkas, A20s, He-111, Ju-88, all divebombing. There's no time to climb and bomb level. And if you do, hurricanes will put your bombs 500m beside the target. 

 

It must get improved. Introduce these extra spawn-ins and soften some winds. 

 

Note: I was talking about heavy bombers with carefully pre-set heavy loadouts. No 5k IL2s, blister turrets or Stukas please. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

You don't do everything you can to make it as much of a potential return to base as you can, otherwise you would go with an escort. Simple.

 

 

I don't know why you have to be disrespectful towards me but i guess thats the general way around here sadly. 

 

 

I think our discussion is going in the wrong direction. I think the problem runs deeper than the recent case of suicide runs. I think there is a general problem with many Bomber pilots (or pilots in general) not caring about how many times they get killed or captured, all they worry about is bringing their bombs to the target. As i understand it, this is not in the spirit of TAW. 

 

In reality, there was a certain bond between bomber crews and their escort fighters for obvious reasons. Something i miss in TAW. In fact i often see people trying to divide both groups (if there are any groups to speak of in the first place). 

 

A serious question to you: Why are there so few escorts accompanying bombers? is it because of people considering it bothersome? is it because people don't care about increasing their survival rate? 

 

In my opinion, many bomber pilots don't really care as long as they hit their target.

 

 

Exactly, i am not entitled to anything either. But i am not the one throwing a tantrum about wanting to play how i want. I am proposing changes to improve the gameplay which you are obviously free to disagree to. I am enjoying TAW either way so far.

 

Sometimes, depending on my plan, the escort gets spotted and downed first giving away my position.  Yes, it is a tactical decision to go solo if chat and comms reports the opponent is (mostly) distracted somewhere else.  Clouds sometimes make a better escort than a fighter or 2 orbiting above me.  If they flew formation with me in the clouds, then they are too low and too slow to actually intercept anything coming to get me and are easier targets for pouncing 109s and 190s.  Often times they can even be downed without even dragging away the attackers so the attackers don't lose sight of me. Sometimes, fighter escort simply doesn't have the fuel capacity to fly my planned route or meet at a rendezvous point. Sometimes flying in a formation of bombers makes them more visible than the mutual gunner cover is worth.  Not so simple, as I have just demonstrated.

 

[edited]

 

I'm for the 'fair spririt' of TAW.  I get that suicide pilots are not a desirable thing.  There's suicide bombers and there are also suicide +1plane rammers.  The problem is that the wrong punishment based on success/fail % will also lump together those who are new, those willing to take bigger risks but have every intent of completing the mission, those having bad luck, and those who simply fail to rate well enough on the "git guud" meter with the exploiters.  Besides, there'd be nothing to stop ACE pilots from repeatedly downing easy prey taking off or landing until said prey incurs a penalty for behavior they weren't doing.   Either that, or the system punishes everybody, which basically makes it worse all-around and doesn't effectively weed out the bad actors. 

 

In reality, when my team or randoms I'm friends with are on comms, and we discuss a plan. We consider whether or not to fly as formation, split up into separate elements, or cause distractions elsewhere while others slip behind enemy lines either solo or as a formation.  Sometimes the best escort is the one that has the opponent forced to put out a dumpster fire on the other side of the map. It's not my fault that people sometimes see unescorted bombers flying and think "no teamwork" instead of seeing the larger tactical picture.  Admittedly, sometimes there is, in fact, no teamwork. I guess that's up to the observer to decide. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. 

 

Your opinion may be "many bomber pilots don't really care as long as they hit their target", and that's fine.  I disagree, however. Especially for VVS side.  We NEED to preserve our non +1 bombers vs. +1 Stukas and the Pe-2's more-athletic cousin +1 BF-110.  Just because some of us are willing to risk a loss or two to further the goal of winning doesn't mean we're exploiting.   Also wanting to punish everybody based on opinion is not a good thing.   Prove the person's intent before calling them out for exploiting.  If you punish poor execution, then you simply punish anybody who fails to rate high enough on the aforementioned "Git Guud"(tm) meter. 

 

I'm speaking up about not wanting to be dictated to about how to play.  I'm not exploiting, but since some of my (and other's) legit tactics are not to other's liking, that's exactly what is being attempted as added to server rules in disguise as "the only way to weed out non-legit exploiters".  The pseudo-logic behind the rules being asked for would punish certain legitimate tactics by default, along with the exploiters, and some would simply say "Too bad. So sad.  They shouldn't have been flying contrary to OUR tactics handbook anyway.".   

Pushing to make rules that conveniently punish exploiters and 'undesirable' (but legitmate) tactics alike is a bigger and more bullshit exploit than what the original issue of the rule was in the first place.  So, yes.  I do get pissed about it and I do call it out.  You can rest assured, it's nowhere near a "tantrum".  Pardon me for gagging a little when I smell shit.

 

Come up with an actually logical rule set without loopholes that punishes the exploiters, not legit tactics users other may disagree with as well, and I will shut up and back it 100%.

 

I'm not the one asking for changes that could punish non-exploitative tactics in the same group as the exploiters, then that new punishment rule having the kind of loopholes in it that can be exploited as well.

And... apparently you're not enjoying TAW as much as you put on if you're campaigning on the forum for these kind of rules.   

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Personal
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Your idea to punish death to stop gamey behavior on TAW is wrong-headed because the best tactics for survival on TAW are gamey.  Why reward the solo 190 and punish the flight of Ju-87s? 

 

I still don't completely understand you i am afraid.

 

First of all a 190 doing a bomb drop is still at risk even though it is a fast flying plane. It won't be able to escape when the defending fighter knows what he is doing and is in a comparable aircraft like the La5 or Yak 1b. Secondly, the Ju-87 is probably the worst attacking aircraft in the game. Flying it without escort to a depot can very well be considered suicide. You might as well bring a knife to a gunfight. 

 

Quote

Why not attempt to create an environment where more realistic tactics work better?

 

My proposed changes do exactly that. They promote flying in a team and valuing your virtual life.

 

[edited]

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Personal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

The effect on player balance is definitely something to consider here but this issue needs changes anyway too. 

In fact, the question of the balance of forces of the parties is primary. It makes no sense to cover a single bomber if it requires too many fighters. Especially if the near targets of your side at the same time fall under the attack of the enemy is in the majority. Another problem is the accuracy of the bombing. Not once was a member of the missions 
 to support the group of bombers, which dropped bombs wide of the goal. Little that acts so depressing on group fighter cover. In principle, as the practice of projects such as NALVAR and ADV, as soon as the fines for the loss of aircraft increase, the level of coordination between fighters and bombers in need of cover increases. Tactical bombing of front-line targets in the current implementation of the server is not beneficial to fighters. Time spent on the escort, the enemy during the flight did not get caught, the flight length of less than 30 minutes does not count as combat. What is the point of a fighter to accompany a bomber....?  If they implemented the mission's cover of attack aircraft with the appropriate bonuses and penalties for loss disguised attack aircraft or bomber will appear much more sense.

 

That's the way example of cover important, albeit not attack aircraft:

 

 

The efforts of several fighter cover, on its territory, in a nearly twofold numerical superiority near his airfield was insufficient. What to say when attacking a group of FW-190 with excess and energy....?

 

P.S. Sorry for the automatic translation

Edited by =FPS=Cutlass
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

In fact, the question of the balance of forces of the parties is primary.

 

While definitely true, it is a knockout-argument. Everything stands and falls with the player balance.

 

Concerning the example video:

 

It is advisable, when escorting low level flying aircrafts which are very vulnerable, to fly ahead to try and clear the airspace. It is true however that is exceptionally difficult to escort aircrafts flying on the deck, especially as LW. That's why level bombing is so crucial.

 

Also nice shooting there.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ala13_Antiguo said:

Mi escuadrón, alterna el bando, una campaña de rojo, azul, rojo, azul, rojo, azul ...
Vuelo exclusivamente bombarderos (a veces Jabo , y rara vez combatientes).
Muchas veces volamos en grupo, dependiendo de los asientos disponibles.
Pero a veces hago vuelos  en solitario , y no por eso soy un Kamikace, como algunos de ustedes quieren  hacernos ver .
No todos los pilotos que hacen un vuelo  en solitario  son Kamikaces.
..... y por supuesto, aquellos que bombardeamos  bases a 6000m, atacamos puntos de defensa a 6000m, intentamos destruir trenes a 6000m ......... NO SOMOS KAMIKACES ...

Valorar  más vuestro  tiempo en volar y tratar de ayudar a vuestro  bando .

 

... cuando no es discutido por A ... es discutido por B.

 


Antiguo, yo no me referia a quienes hacen salidas solos, sino mas bien a quienes hacen salidas suicidas con el objetivo de romper lo más posible sin tener en cuenta su supervivencia. Por ejemplo el caso del usuario que hablabamos antes, si te fijas sus salidas él se dedica a ir con un 109 o 110 a una base 4 o 5 veces hasta destruir toda la antiaérea, no importa que muera en el intento, mientras se lleve 1 o 2 le vale. Así hace que la base o el depósito quede totalmente desprotegido y ahí otros compañeros de equipo van y lo finalizan.

Varias veces he visto como este usuario se jactaba de su eficacia y como "me hice una base/depósito solo" y al jugar ver como el equipo contrario siempre tenia la ventaja en depositos y bases destruidas al 100%, constantemente ganando terreno sin importar la coordinación nuestra.

En ese sentido eso a mi me sacan las ganas de jugar, porque no puedo competir contra eso y me causa frustación. Yo no me voy a rebajar a su nivel para ser competitivo, simplemente quiero que estas cosas no ocurran y que la gente trate de volar eficientemente para conservar su vida y su avión.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, =BES=Coyote-66 said:

Can't wait to tackle the balance issue when that penalty is in effect for 5v40.... 

 

I have to ask, do any of you even attempt to understand downstream affect when providing input?

 

+1

 

Penalizing death is one thing when teams are balanced or if that death is on the side with the majority players.  It’s another thing entirely for the side being outnumbered.

 

You can “fly smart” when you have the numbers, as by default each pilot has less risk of dying than the side being outnumbered.  If you join a mission when your side is outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, flying smart might mean not joining at all!  So it’s really not fair to say “fly smart”.

 

“If” a death penalty revision is to be made, I would strongly suggest its dynamic.  If the sides are balanced, or you are on the larger team, sure.  But if you are on the outnumbered side, it’s not in affect.  Otherwise it can make an already bad situation (e.g. 50-30) much worse (e.g. 45-15).

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

While definitely true, it is a knockout-argument. Everything stands and falls with the player balance.

 

Concerning the example video:

 

It is advisable, when escorting low level flying aircrafts which are very vulnerable, to fly ahead to try and clear the airspace. It is true however that is exceptionally difficult to escort aircrafts flying on the deck, especially as LW. That's why level bombing is so crucial.

 

Also nice shooting there.

Complete agreement. Just a question...where to take so many fighter escort with the numerical superiority of the enemy in more than 2 times ...?     ;)

 

This I mean that the question of balance is primary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

Complete agreement. Just a question...where to take so many fighter escort with the numerical superiority of the enemy in more than 2 times ...?     ;)

 

This I mean that the question of balance is primary.

 

 

Like i said, balance is an issue here as with every other balance topic. 

 

When it comes to depots however there is mostly just one max three enemy defending it. An escort of two will already make a huge difference. 

 

I was able to shoot down 5 enemy bomber because they had no escort. If they had a single one with them I might not have been able to shoot down a single one. It is always worth it to get an escort, especially when it comes to depots.

Share this post


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

 

+1

 

Penalizing death is one thing when teams are balanced or if that death is on the side with the majority players.  It’s another thing entirely for the side being outnumbered.

 

You can “fly smart” when you have the numbers, as by default each pilot has less risk of dying than the side being outnumbered.  If you join a mission when your side is outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, flying smart might mean not joining at all!  So it’s really not fair to say “fly smart”.

 

“If” a death penalty revision is to be made, I would strongly suggest its dynamic.  If the sides are balanced, or you are on the larger team, sure.  But if you are on the outnumbered side, it’s not in affect.  Otherwise it can make an already bad situation (e.g. 50-30) much worse (e.g. 45-15).

 

If by 'fly smart' you mean flying straight into teeth of the enemy hoping to take down as many as possible before you are killed, then no, i agree.

But if you mean, fly transports away from the front line,  bomber flights taking alternative routes to avoid being found (or just over the front line in case you are hit and have to bail), or maybe CAP a depot in the rear until others join.......

Now that's flying smart.

You don't always have to attack to win, you can also strengthen your defense so you don't lose..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

If by 'fly smart' you mean flying straight into teeth of the enemy hoping to take down as many as possible before you are killed, then no, i agree.

But if you mean, fly transports away from the front line,  bomber flights taking alternative routes to avoid being found (or just over the front line in case you are hit and have to bail), or maybe CAP a depot in the rear until others join.......

Now that's flying smart.

You don't always have to attack to win, you can also strengthen your defense so you don't lose..

 

Well yes I was being a little facetious, but if you are outnumbered, flying smart as you say still often doesn’t help.  The larger side has a surplus of pilots that can afford to cap over their airbases, defensive positions and tanks/convoys (and enemy airfields), such that no matter how smart you fly, you will eventually be seen and attacked - not so for the outnumbered side.

 

I always try to take indirect routes when I can and it makes sense.  If a fighter(s) is circling the target, safe goes out the window once you’re spotted :).

 

My main point is, just because you die in a sortie doesn’t mean you didn’t fly smart.  Especially if you’re outnumbered - you often have to fly even smarter if you’re going to survive in those situations.  I just don’t care for the generalization.

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Like i said, balance is an issue here as with every other balance topic. 

 

When it comes to depots however there is mostly just one max three enemy defending it. An escort of two will already make a huge difference. 

 

I was able to shoot down 5 enemy bomber because they had no escort. If they had a single one with them I might not have been able to shoot down a single one. It is always worth it to get an escort, especially when it comes to depots.

I shot down 2 or 3 Luftwaffe bombers in the warehouse area. The bombers had no cover.

You know what the fun part is....?

Two points.

The first: Luftwaffe had numerical advantage in 1.5-2 times.

Second: 7-10 minutes after landing at the rear of the airport and re-departure to cover the warehouse I was shot down...enemy fighter...arrived in the number of 5 cars, of which four were with bombs, and one carried out the cover of the strike group from a height.  :lol:

 

As you think...which of the parties was easier to hold the bomber to the rear warehouse and provide him with normal cover....?

Second question...did it make sense for my side to accompany the bomber in the departure to the rear warehouse, even one fighter, if as a result of even a successful strike without losing the bomber, the damage to the warehouse will be minimal, and the enemy tanks will block or seize our front-line airfield...?

Edited by =FPS=Cutlass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

As you think...which of the parties was easier to hold the bomber to the rear warehouse and provide him with normal cover...?

 

I hope i understand you correctly: Depends on the execution. Fighters with Bombs can be very effective but they need more resources (pilots and aircrafts) to achieve the same amount of damage as Bombers, even when you consider having escort fighters. That's why i think level-bombing is superior if done right. Dive bombing is much easier though but it relies more on outnumbering the enemy than the level-bombers, especially when flying axis. VVS has a tougher time to do level bombing, Dive bombing might be better for them.

 

Quote

Second question...did it make sense for my side to accompany the bomber in the departure to the rear warehouse, even one fighter, if as a result of even a successful strike without losing the bomber, the damage to the warehouse will be minimal, and the enemy tanks will block or seize our front-line airfield...?

 

Warehouses are crucial and most of the time the most important objectives in the game. The problem is that they are very difficult to take out in time (something that probably needs to get looked at by the devs). I would pretty much always sacrifice an airfield for a destroyed warehouse. 

 

It is always a bad outcome if you spend resources on an objective but fail to destroy it. Warehouses are no exception. That's why team coordination is very important. Having an active big squadron online helps a lot because they can usually achieve objectives alone without too much coordination with randoms.

 

I remember the Stalingrad map 2 campaigns ago where Axis destroyed the VVS depots very early and they pushed us hard with multiple tank columns. VVS barely managed to hold on to the last airfields across the volga (shkolny and staritsa i think?) with great teamplay. Axis nearly ran out of tanks and aircrafts until a warehouse spawned and VVS wasn't able to defend against the tank columns and the warehouse. The warehouse survived and gave Axis plenty of additional tanks and aircrafts and they won the map.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

I hope i understand you correctly: Depends on the execution. Fighters with Bombs can be very effective but they need more resources (pilots and aircrafts) to achieve the same amount of damage as Bombers, even when you consider having escort fighters. That's why i think level-bombing is superior if done right. Dive bombing is much easier though but it relies more on outnumbering the enemy than the level-bombers, especially when flying axis. VVS has a tougher time to do level bombing, Dive bombing might be better for them.

 

 

Warehouses are crucial and most of the time the most important objectives in the game. The problem is that they are very difficult to take out in time (something that probably needs to get looked at by the devs). I would pretty much always sacrifice an airfield for a destroyed warehouse. 

 

It is always a bad outcome if you spend resources on an objective but fail to destroy it. Warehouses are no exception. That's why team coordination is very important. Having an active big squadron online helps a lot because they can usually achieve objectives alone without too much coordination with randoms.

 

I remember the Stalingrad map 2 campaigns ago where Axis destroyed the VVS depots very early and they pushed us hard with multiple tank columns. VVS barely managed to hold on to the last airfields across the volga (shkolny and staritsa i think?) with great teamplay. Axis nearly ran out of tanks and aircrafts until a warehouse spawned and VVS wasn't able to defend against the tank columns and the warehouse. The warehouse survived and gave Axis plenty of additional tanks and aircrafts and they won the map.

The technology of victory through the destruction of rear warehouses is clear.

I'm just saying that implementing any strategy for victory:

 

1. destruction of all enemy aircraft

2. capture all of the airfields

3. the destruction of logistical warehouses with the subsequent blitzkrieg - easier and faster to do with 1.5-2 fold advantage in numbers.

 

Let's look at the potential of the teams.

Horizontal bombing Ju-88 and he-111 is about 2 times more effective than the PE-2 when attacking the warehouses. When storming warehouses with fighters and their subsequent finishing off bombers from low altitudes, the gap is even more noticeable.The usual Bf-109 can destroy bombs SC-50 4 buildings, I-16, LaGG-3, La-5 can destroy 2 buildings and Yak-1\7B only one.  

Pe-2 can destroy 10 buildings at 100% efficiency, Ju-88 can destroy 28 buildings (if it takes only on the internal suspension) and 44 buildings if it takes SC-50 on the internal and external suspension. Note that this is under equal conditions.

If the numerical superiority of 1.5-2 times allows you to allocate 5-6 aircraft including 1-2 bombers Ju-88 to hit the warehouse, the target is very likely to be damaged by 60-8% or more. After the destruction of anti-aircraft artillery achieves everything else without any problems one Ju-88 with the cover of a pair of fighters.

 

Calculate the outfit forces necessary to obtain a similar result for the red army air force.

5 fighter LaGG-3 gives at 100% efficiency 10 destroyed buildings.

Pe-2 gives you the same amount.  

Total get 20 buildings destroyed by the red army air force against 48-64 buildings destroyed by the Luftwaffe.

 

After that, it is possible to share advice on the organization of the cover of attack aircraft, protection of bombers from sudden attacks from the front hemisphere, etc.....:lol:

 

As they say in Russia :

"Do not teach me to live, better help financially."  ......:umnik2:

 

If that - the previous three campaigns I flew for the Luftwaffe......:bye:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@=FPS=Cutlass perfect analysis of current TAW situation. This is the reason why i recommended admins to populate much more main depots and sorrounding areas with fast AAA, make it as a suicide to approach them at low alt (also make them respawn if they get destroyed). This way they stay as an strategic target and can not be exploited as it has been by both sides using fighters for suppressing all AA and finishing it with attack planes picking depots one by one with small bombs, something that favours LW by big margins because of the bombload as shown by Cutlass.

 

This is what happened at the start of current Kuban map (it was during early EU time with few pilots in the server); in 4 hs -only 2 mission loads- a couple of blue guys who took advantage of their numbers reduced red depots to ashes by exploting this flaw, again, this is also done by red side. So when most people joined this new map, they found out that VVS was already at the defensive after only two missions.

 

Make depots a strategic target again, it will favour LW too, but not so much like now and it can be more balanced, specially if VVS has an advantage in CAS.

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @ECV56_Chimango for once ;)

 

Additionally i would really like to see additional spotters that are placed somewhere around the depot. It doesn't make much sense that the first warning you likely get is the depot itself, which makes preventing a bomb drop near impossible. Last time i proposed this, i got a lot of flak from some people as if i wanted to steal their sweet candy but it actually makes a lot of sense especially when you consider the number imbalance.

 

People were saying that you simply had to patrol certain areas to catch the enemy Bomber on its way but never even considered how impractical this actually is, again, especially when outnumbered. To catch a single bomber with a good probability you would at least need around 4 pilots on patrol. Something that the outnumbered side simply can not spare and even then there is a high probability that the enemy sneaks past you because you have absolutely no knowledge on the target.

 

This proposed idea would also make the whole depot defense/attack mechanic a lot more interesting. Currently it is probably the most boring but necessary thing you can do. Circle the Depot semi afk on high alt and wait till the message pops up. Even if you stay on your toes and look for incoming bombers you usually don't have enough time to position yourself and prevent the drop. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is the problem of covering warehouses can be facilitated through the installation of 4-8 guns 85-88mm at a distance of 10-15km from the warehouse. This will provide support anti-aircraft fire, which will facilitate the detection of gaps enemy aircraft at medium and high altitudes. How to cover a warehouse anti-aircraft artillery and small caliber I don't know...it all depends on the available resources of the computing ability of the server. Just do a partial solution is to put to cover stock socket 2-3 anti-aircraft gun, about the same as is done on the ground, at a distance from each other, not allowing to destroy them reset one bomb caliber 500-1000kg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More flak, better spotters, and since Axis is relying on a supply chain with some very major logistical problems and Russia has lots of back-line shipping that Axis can't touch, make Russian depots require 1.5 to 2 times more damage than Axis to destroy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

How to cover a warehouse anti-aircraft artillery and small caliber I don't know...it all depends on the available resources of the computing ability of the server. Just do a partial solution is to put to cover stock socket 2-3 anti-aircraft gun, about the same as is done on the ground, at a distance from each other, not allowing to destroy them reset one bomb caliber 500-1000kg

 

Yes, i have no idea if it is doable. If it's not due to server load limitation maybe just post a rule: "It's forbidden to attack main depots with anything other than bombers"; or something else admins come up with but the important thing is:  depots must not be able to be attacked by jabos/attack planes.

@Operation_Ivy don't let Christmas soften you! :biggrin: Now seriously, it's true that we disagree many times (maybe most of them), but this is not the first time we are in agreement; you also think the balance in numbers issue needs to be tackled; we also agree  on extending the time kick for KIA/captured pilots; and probably we agree on other things. It's just fine if we disagree, like we do on Vya23/gunpods subject, each one of us have our own reasons and it's ok, you are not my enemy for thinking different, and you are not a weaker guy when you accept the other one is right, actually the opposite.

 

S!
 

Edited by ECV56_Chimango
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =FPS=Cutlass said:

 

So uh... when is the server coming back online?

Edited by =KG76=flyus747
Didnt mean to quote anyone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 more week?

 

Server says Christmas break until 25th.  Accounting for the different time zones, even the West Coast is on the 25th already though.

 

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...