Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

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.

 

Did you know that Gullible is written on the ceiling :P. Its probably coming back on the 26th.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 8:04 PM, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

It's a slippery slope that that leads to increasing calls for more and more restrictions as to what is fair and what's not.  Use a legit tactic that's even slightly frustrating to opponent players? Ban.  Shoot the chute of someone who's known to boil over about getting chute killed? Ban.  Land the wrong way at the end of the sortie? Ban.  Launch a massive raid knowing that the mission timer will end 2 minutes after your team makes their attack? Ban.  Strafe a plane that's got a dead propeller but an obviously still-live pilot? Ban.  Use +1 planes to ram non +1 planes from the sky knowing you'll get it back next round? Ban. Use Nav. lights when in trouble instead of flares to call for help? Ban.  Go on a solo mission that has an almost zero chance of returning from? Ban.  Fly solo at all except for transports? Ban.  The list of nitpicking little things can go on and on...

 

 

Pretty much this. I would also add that I personally consider @ECV56_Chimango's exploit of the 3.009 DM/MP bug in a PE2 (which was at the time the least vulnerable aircraft to the bug) to get 12 kills and pad his streak further to be a worse case than all of the above listed even if you include my "landing" on an undefended runway. 

 

@=RS=Stix_09 if "common sense" rules were not need to be written, TAW wouldn't bother to specify things like "Friendly fire is forbidden. You will be banned for deliberately shooting at the team mates or friendly ground units". To some parachute killing is an unwritten rule, but on TAW it is encouraged to parachute kill if you have the opportunity to do so.

 

In any case. My position is quite simple - my goal is to maximise my contribution to the victory of my team by whatever legal means available to me. Some people identified me as "gamer" and I guess that would be somewhat correct, given that I value victory over the roleplay / stat-padding aspects of the game. I can understand how that can frustrate the role-players of the community, who have been quite vocal in the last few of the forums pages, but I promise it is about as frustrating to see people decline high-risk high-reward missions simply because they care too much for their life or prefer to do things "their" way, which usually ends up being a waste of time (level bombing depots). Majority of the tactics that I use were not invented by me, but mostly taken by observing the attempts of other players and perfecting them in terms of survival rate and impact per time invested.

 

@=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ You attempt to differentiate yourself from "exploiters", but do not actually bring up what you consider an exploit. All of my missions are flown with the survival in mind - I would never have enough aircraft to take out AAA on an airfield if I just traded 1 aircraft per 1 AAA gun and that would be a clear waste of the aircraft. I am not an exceptional pilot, so these missions are very dangerous to me, but if I am able to take out 2-3 AAAs per sortie, what is there to stop me from improving further to eventually learn to take out all of the AAA without a loss of an aircraft? (something I have managed to do several times this TAW actually). At this point your sortie of 2 pe2 aircraft against a well-defended tank column could be considered a more of a suicide mission (both of you died) than what I do.

 

I strictly abide by the rules of the servers I play on to the best of my ability (KOTAR bans ramming, but sometimes lag / the other guy simply don't leave you an option to evade). And I have no attachment to the tactics I currently employ - change of the rules simply changes the META of the game.

 

For example, the multiple calls to penalise the deaths "more" by longer bans and even reset of player's hangar would very quickly drive me from attacking ground targets to farming pilot kills and thus depopulating the opponent's team, which in turn would allow my team to safely engage the ground. 

 

Merry Christmas to you all :)

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xjammer,

 

I hesitate to comment on the subject too much because I have only ever flown a couple of sorties on TAW (maybe some day I'll get into it more), but wow, if I were running a tournament-style server and some guy exploited the game by landing on a field and spawn-killing players, I would boot that guy out -permanently-, first time, no warnings, completely non-negotiable. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Xjammer,

 

I hesitate to comment on the subject too much because I have only ever flown a couple of sorties on TAW (maybe some day I'll get into it more), but wow, if I were running a tournament-style server and some guy exploited the game by landing on a field and spawn-killing players, I would boot that guy out -permanently-, first time, no warnings, completely non-negotiable. 

 

 

KOTAR had similar issue when their admin banned a player for parachute killing when they did not have the rule in place to specify it. Some people associate parachute kill with direct disrespect of the player who was killed. Others do it because it is has gameplay value (though I honestly do not know why that player chute killed on KOTAR as there was no value at the time). They introduced a specific rule to forbid chute killing after that incident and unbanned the player in question. Personally that is a lot better way to handle the situation than the knee-jerk reaction so many players propose here.

 

Especially if you consider that practically, on TAW, an aircraft patrolling 500m above the spawn location, able to immediately respond to a spawned aircraft will kill the player just the same - it takes around 10-15 seconds for most players to "boot in" to their aircraft, and TAW enforces 15 second logout timer if you choose to finish your mission. More than enough time to do 2 passes on the aircraft and take a good aim at the cockpit. A landed aircraft in this case is actually giving up its ability to defend itself if someone were to arrive from outside of the airfield.

 

In any case, I do not wish to stir up the drama yet again by trying to "defend" what I did - some people feel strongly against it, others have shown reason with regard to introducing a rule if it is truly such an atrocious tactic. It wasn't very effective in my mind as it makes you so weak, so I likely won't be repeating it even if the rule isn't introduced (and certainly won't even attempt it if the rule was made).

Edited by xJammer
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are still rationalizing and trying to justify such a trollish action is all the more reason I would ban you (and forever).

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

The fact that you are still trying to justify such a trollish action is all the more reason I would ban you. 

 

Fair enough. I guess there is no point to try to communicate with you, as anything I would say you'd consider either an attempt to defend/justify, or an attempt to avoid being banned. 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

...

 

 

Not sure what you are trying to show there other than my incompetence at completing the set mission? None of those missions were a guaranteed failure and with a better skill and methodology could be perfected to 80-90% survival rate. Here is an example where it worked:

 

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50224&name=xJammer

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50271&name=xJammer

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=50326&name=xJammer

 

The airfield that originally had 11% damage was 100% damaged the next mission.

 

Lol I decided to sort by deaths

 

image.thumb.png.c3ccd0e0bcd5371b5c7d90bcecd22a0c.png

Edited by xJammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 3:33 PM, xJammer said:

 

I apologise I got bored strafing you guys originally, so I decided to land and lose any chance to defend myself if one of you decided to come from elsewhere rather than spawn.

 

There is no exploit as I have taken out all of the AAA at the airfield so it was completely undefended. Had there been any AAA it would have shot me until I died. The sortie just before actually was me cleaning up the airfield AAA.

 

@xJammer As you stated you got bored, All your next actions just appear to be you having fun at the expense of other players. Killing people before they can even enter the game is an exploit. There is no way to justify that. And most people can see it that way, even if you refuse to.

Sure they can spawn at another airfield , but tell that to the guys you killed , before they even knew you were there.

 

So you justify it as playing within the rules to help your team win " by whatever legal means available to me". I think many of those people on your own team would not even agree with that, in this context. Using an exploit like this. This does not make a fun game for anyone but you.

 

This is the kind of behavior that causes us to loose  many of our freedoms by rules and  regulations and laws, because of the minority of people doing stupid stuff. Rather than the individual being punished. ( (as an example of what I mean :it's why in my country some of the best fireworks don't exist any more and in some countries only public displays now allow you to use them, because people do stupid things within the law/rules, everyone gets punished and not the individual, because its easier.)

 

So ya (as you have now made clear) we will need another rule sadly.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, a while back xjammer did the same thing on the DED normal server, which resulted in some lively forum debate, and just within the last few weeks, based on comments on coconut's discord forum, he was at it again, come to think of it, I haven't seen any posts on that forum from xjammer in a while. Now it comes up again on TAW. Whose server will be next? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

@xJammer As you stated you got bored, All your next actions just appear to be you having fun at the expense of other players.

 

Getting bored was a justification to choose an inferior approach - landing instead of continuing to strafe the spawn as people spawned into the airfield. I was killed on the airfield as a result.

 

14 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Killing people before they can even enter the game is an exploit.

 

There is no connection between a landed aircraft and "killing people before they can spawn exploit". Currently the aircraft appears around 10-30 seconds before the player actually takes control of the said aircraft. This aircraft can be strafed, bombed or shot by the gunner of landed aircraft. So what you call an "exploit" factually applies to every single player who vulches or bombs the ramp. There is also no indication when the aircraft has actually become controllable by the player in question - so even if people wanted to avoid such an "exploit" they wouldn't be able to without letting the aircraft first start its engine.

 

 

 

@No_85_Gramps  Coconut server actually implemented a rule to auto-kick any landed aircraft that is outside of a friendly airfield within 30 seconds (which is something I proposed at the time). Again, its the same as parachute killing - servers make their choice as to what they are willing to allow, players play by the rules given.

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's follow the rules. Usually in disputable situations in order to reach a consensus it is necessary to observe the rule: "what is not forbidden - is allowed".

Jammer, did not violate the written rules of the server directly prohibiting Vulc as such.

All the more that he did it in some missions to the map of Kuban without using the server errors, which consisted in the absence of anti-aircraft cover airfields.

And in some missions in order to achieve the removal of the airfield from the system, he and his group suffered quite heavy losses from anti-aircraft artillery and several accidentally flying enemy aircraft. Quite logical reward for it was a legal possibility of destruction appeared in the Parking lot of enemy aircraft.

Such actions are not explicitly prohibited by the rules of the server, so the claims to the Jammer are not justified.

Another thing is that striving to win by all means, Jammer creates a situation:"winning always - lose a partner."

It is this consideration was the reason that I was forced to go to fly for three campaigns for the Luftwaffe team.

And exactly the same considerations prompted me in the current campaign to fly for the air force team of the red army.

 

At the moment, the administration server must find a solution to the problem of team balance.

How they will be able to implement it technically is a matter of their preferences and competence. In principle, "everything has been invented before us."

NULL-WAR team in most receiving more penalty for the lost aircraft and pilots, shatterstone team being in the minority had a strategy : to "act tough defense to shoot down as much as possible, denying the opponent's most dangerous aircraft".

There was binding of the titles ( which are implemented on TAW) to the choice of maximum downloads and the most effective types of weapons.

How much controversy is the presence or absence of a gun on the plane VYA LaGG-3....?

At NULL-WAR, the issue was resolved quite gracefully :

the aircraft with excellent characteristics or weapons was available in minimum quantities from a certain period of the war for a certain, high enough rank.

For example 42G on the first map LaGG-3-VYA-23mm will be available with the title of "major General" and Chimanov and not only him will be something to strive for.

From the next map, the access bar can be lowered to the rank of "Colonel" and so on.

This is a question of fine-tuning access to aircraft and weapons on the principle of "war period - the title from which the aircraft is available or its modification."

The same was implemented with attack aircraft and bombers.

Died we assume the Jammer during a strafing of the airfield, received a reduction in rank and a certain number of downloads for its attack aircraft were unavailable.

Shot down let's say a bomber near the warehouse..poll he was captured - he lost the title and instead of being able to hang with the maximum loading 6х250кг or 2х500кг + 4х250кг can take only 4х250кг or 28х50кг.

Pe-2 to ZERO-the WAR limited download 6хFAB-100 for the title of "Sergeant" Il-2 limited load in 4хFAB-100.  

This system is stimulated to act in groups.

To provide cover for the attack aircraft and minimize potential losses.

In that system, the Jammer simply wouldn't be able to act as effectively after two consecutive deaths in a single mission.

In combination with increased bonuses for the team in the minority - the balance problem was minimized so much that sometimes the teams flew in a ratio of 4 to 25-30 and the "magnificent four" could keep the enemy team in suspense, causing it at the slightest possibility of loss and thereby reducing its impact potential even in the minority.

Share this post


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

 

@=AVG77=Mobile_BBQ You attempt to differentiate yourself from "exploiters", but do not actually bring up what you consider an exploit. All of my missions are flown with the survival in mind - I would never have enough aircraft to take out AAA on an airfield if I just traded 1 aircraft per 1 AAA gun and that would be a clear waste of the aircraft. I am not an exceptional pilot, so these missions are very dangerous to me, but if I am able to take out 2-3 AAAs per sortie, what is there to stop me from improving further to eventually learn to take out all of the AAA without a loss of an aircraft? (something I have managed to do several times this TAW actually). At this point your sortie of 2 pe2 aircraft against a well-defended tank column could be considered a more of a suicide mission (both of you died) than what I do.

 

I strictly abide by the rules of the servers I play on to the best of my ability (KOTAR bans ramming, but sometimes lag / the other guy simply don't leave you an option to evade). And I have no attachment to the tactics I currently employ - change of the rules simply changes the META of the game.

 

For example, the multiple calls to penalise the deaths "more" by longer bans and even reset of player's hangar would very quickly drive me from attacking ground targets to farming pilot kills and thus depopulating the opponent's team, which in turn would allow my team to safely engage the ground. 

 

Merry Christmas to you all :)

 

Um... I admit I did get pissed when you rammed me on that mission, but I believe I even said to you personally that I accepted that it was fair game.

You did choose to attack 2 Pe-2s with a 110 and got chewed up by rear gunners bad enough that you chose to ram the second one to get the kill. We were already finished with our attack and RTB when you attacked us.  It seems to me that our choice to take on the mission vs. your choice to attack us alone resulted in an equal amount for both parties involved of whatever it is that's being called "suicide".

 

The thing that ticks me off is that others I have talked to have specifically recounted people waiting until Pe-2s and other "earned" planes are flaps down, wheels down and on final landing approach to ram them with their +1 109s only having to wait 2 hours to pick another target.

 

I also do consider the whole landing on an enemy airfield and rear-gunner-ing spawning planes to be an exploit. 

 

I will hand it to you though, looking back at older pages, you have made efforts to report various exploits only to see no action from the server admins to fix it in-game.  That said, providing your own example of these things overlooked or ignored doesn't come down to whether you could do it (apparently, yes), whether you would do it (again, apparently, yes), but whether you should do it.   It seems that by choosing "yes", you would - and did, instead of considering what the reaction would be if you did.  Apparently, many players find this to be of poor sportsmanship and also of vitriolic spirit.  It's no surprise to me that some don't want you allowed to fly on TAW.  I could care less either way.  I don't find you've violated rules, but I also feel no reason to not publicly support my squad mates should the majority vote they want you banned. 

 

My main concern is that whatever solution to control exploit abuse should not be based in blanket rules that A) punish everybody and do nothing to make an example out of the specific offenders, and B) Punish people who do not exploit, but use legitimate tactics which - depending on skill and/or even luck could make them look identical on a stat page. 

 

Instead, if rules are to be made, then those rules need to A) be able to specifically identify those who are INTENTIONALLY using exploits and leave out those who's poor or unlucky EXECUTION of valid tactics makes their stats look similar, and B) not pander to those who wish to restrict valid tactics from legitimate players simply because others who don't like such tactics.  

 

It's apparent to me that some players wish to use poorly-proposed "anti-exploit" rules as a way to justify the "collateral damage" caused to legitimate players whose legitimate tactics they cannot cope with.  Perhaps it's a control freak thing.  Perhaps it's an ego thing.  Perhaps it's just an overall lack of intelligence that make them desire their opponent to be restricted into predictable patterns. Perhaps they think that the mutual restriction of their own teammates from having these tactics available will create a better sense of teamwork due to having a much-more limited tool set to work with.  Rhetorically speaking, if they can only all do the same thing, then they should be more prone to do said "same thing" in a group.   

Whatever the reason, I find this potential outcome unacceptable.  

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Make rules that specifically identify and target the poor/exploitative behavior. Make rules that specifically apply to the offenders without causing non-offenders to be potentially targeted as well.  Make rules that don't apply the "it's close enough for a hand grenade" philosophy to legitimate and valid, but similar looking, tactics thereby eliminating them and punishing or ostracizing players who employ them.  Make rules that are logical and without further exploitable loopholes.  Do these things, and I'll get off the soapbox and (figuratively speaking of course) go away. 

 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2018 at 7:29 PM, SCG_Riksen said:

Ok, after this one I'm out ... thanks LG and everyone else for TAW and all the work you do but it is people like xJammer that destroys this community. Some things are just common sense man, and it is obvious that he lacks any ... I mean, cmon, what kinda person would join TAW and start crash landing aircrafts instead of properly landing them because it took him 15 extra seconds to deploy the landing gears? What kind of person would land in an enemy AF and sit there to shoot people spawning? The dude is just an old troll and does not deserve a place in TAW.

 

It's not really Jammers fault..... This is the nature of pub play. Even a campaign. You have to take some silly lumps. For full immersion a closed campaign is the way to go. Come join Drifter.   :)

 

Tongue in cheek of course.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

It's not really Jammers fault..... This is the nature of pub play. Even a campaign. You have to take some silly lumps. For full immersion a closed campaign is the way to go. Come join Drifter.   :)

 

Tongue in cheek of course.

What is annoying is your bragging multiple times in this thread how your exclusive closed ACG campaign is better than anyone else's that is basically inaccessible to those whose daily schedule doesn't work, those who don't want to be a member of your squad, or don't want to leave their current one. 

 

It comes across as arrogance which for me is more likely to push me away than make me interested.

Edited by =AVG77=Garven
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as an organizer of several campaigns of the seow type HRCODWAR
 I would never approve that one of my pilots landed in the enemy's field to kill newly generated aircraft
, in the air is where you have to face them that is the nature of this server everyone is free of thinking
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow. Like many I stepped away to have a nice Christmas and then about five pages of cat vomit happens. 

It's clear the person in question loves the attention as much as a Kardashian. Repeat offender, not only here but on several other popular servers. Ban him and be done with it. His behavior clearly shows he has no remorse.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's inexcusable, in my opinion, to land on an airfield and shoot spawning players on the ground. I know this is a sim/game and there is a lot of unrealistic things happening, but this is beyond immersion breaking. It's just unfortunate that there wasn't all sorts of ground crew with rifles to shoot the offender on site.

 

It was clearly an inflammatory thing to do, and was done with the intention of being so. I'd be in favor of a temporary ban followed by a specific rule about landing on an enemy airfield being illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tawoholics!!!
Merry christmas for all of you!
DRzNcp2W0AANA1Q.jpg.1e67f62221b775771422266b42e06a0f.jpg

Currently I`m gathering all the historical data about operational service of planes &operational history of the LW and VVS units (including info how they were replacing planes during the war ) used in TAW maps.

 

If you have any links, pdf & word files, books, etc. which might be helpful in creating a historical planeset lines, please share it with me on private message in forum

 

All the additional comments are welcome.
( if you have data in your native language plz send it in a form which I could retranslate via online tools )

Blak

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =LG=Blakhart said:

 historical data about operational service of planes &operational history of the LW and VVS units (including info how they were replacing planes during the war )

 

Good to hear this! If you come across black holes you could ask BlackSix or use the single player campaign as reference o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

What is annoying is your bragging multiple times in this thread how your exclusive closed ACG campaign is better than anyone else's that is basically inaccessible to those whose daily schedule doesn't work, those who don't want to be a member of your squad, or don't want to leave their current one. 

 

It comes across as arrogance which for me is more likely to push me away than make me interested.

 

 

We fly Sunday. We have the longest running campaign in flight simming currently. It didn't happen by accident.

 

Our closed campaign is very good. I'm not bothered if you feel I'm being arrogant about being part of the longest running campaign in simming. In fact it would be a good idea to have thicker skin than you have shown to possess if you where to apply to join ACG. If you didn't want to leave your mates all of them can join. We've taken whole squadrons before. We have to be closed with members joining ACG so we can maintain order on fly day. We have guys join ACG to avoid Jammer like shenanigans tearing the whole thing apart. Riksen just posted that he is out of TAW now...... One guy can have one hell of a negative impact. In TAW we have more than just Jammer. We have entire squadrons who refuse to balance the server ruining it for all......

 

If you dislike some of the TAW shenanigans that you can never stomp out in a public campaign you are looking for a closed campaign. For TAW to move closer to what we have done it would need far more structure such as sign up sheets matching time zones. ACG has gone this way and as a result we've had a campaign going for 6 years or so. We will also shift guys around to maintain pilot balance. I have German tags but operate as 1-495 IAP in campaign flying an I16 due to needs of the group.

 

We've got about 170 pilots at the moment. We've all sorts of personalities from the kind and generous to the crass asshats like myself. It is a time commitment but people are free to come and go as real life changes.

 

https://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/

 

Best bit is I still get to participate in TAW which I enjoy immensely. I just accept some of the silly stuff that comes with an open campaign. I've given up on expecting any sort of balance for example and just play for fun. From Jammers to team stack it is what it is so just enjoy it.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@7./JG26_Smokejumper you know i have no quarrels with you. That being said, i find it bad taste to (continuously) jump into other MP Server Threads to promote your campaign. If it is as great as you claim it to be, let it speak for itself.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripe for the taking, if only Po-2's were usable like the Ju-52's to capture airfields... :).  But all that can be done is to wait for tanks... 

 

Any thoughts =LG= on how you might incorporate the Po-2's yet?  Just curious, thanks.

ripe_for_taking_with_Po2.png

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AKA_Relent said:

Ripe for the taking, if only Po-2's were usable like the Ju-52's to capture airfields... :).  But all that can be done is to wait for tanks... 

 

Any thoughts =LG= on how you might incorporate the Po-2's yet?  Just curious, thanks.

ripe_for_taking_with_Po2.png

Am I incorrect in saying that the deficit in truck Allies are running is going to slow down the whole capture process?

 

+1 on Po-2's but it may be that TAW will have to wait for the next campaign to get it incorporated.  Either that, or put the last 2 maps on hold until it's rushed into service.  Neither option sounds great, but shoehorning it in maybe worse than setting it up in the downtime before the next campaign. 

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello TAW admins.  I have an important question for you

Why did you make non-conventional armor for German tanks?

In the original game, 5-7 hits are enough to destroy the pz3. On your server, pz3 and stuge  able to withstand more than 30 hits of 37mm. Whaaat ??

 

look here

fist vidio is a vanila game. 

 

and this! is ur server!

 

16 hits and tank steel alive.  its non realistic and disbalance! fix it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

Isn't this from the developer making ground stuff stronger? 

 

no.  this two vidios i make in one day.
Mission creators can change the strength of objects and targets.

 

 

Edited by STOIKIY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent played much after the last updated, but i heard some people commenting that after you de-track the tank it becomes basically indestructible, also I dont know why, but the game started to credit you for the kill if you de-track the tanks even though it didnt explode. Maybe thats related to issue ?

Share this post


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

I havent played much after the last updated, but i heard some people commenting that after you de-track the tank it becomes basically indestructible, also I dont know why, but the game started to credit you for the kill if you de-track the tanks even though it didnt explode. Maybe thats related to issue ?

This. 

Share this post


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

hello TAW admins.  I have an important question for you

Why did you make non-conventional armor for German tanks?

In the original game, 5-7 hits are enough to destroy the pz3. On your server, pz3 and stuge  able to withstand more than 30 hits of 37mm. Whaaat ??

 

look here

fist vidio is a vanila game. 

 

and this! is ur server!

 

16 hits and tank steel alive.  its non realistic and disbalance! fix it!

You detracked those PzIII in both videos, so the effect is basically the same. In addition, in 1st video, you are attacking in almost exactly 90 degrees, and in the 2nd video, you are attacking from 45 degrees which makes sloped armor.

 

Besides..

1 hour ago, Willy__ said:

I havent played much after the last updated, but i heard some people commenting that after you de-track the tank it becomes basically indestructible, also I dont know why, but the game started to credit you for the kill if you de-track the tanks even though it didnt explode. Maybe thats related to issue ?

 

 

 

Share this post


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

You detracked those PzIII in both videos, so the effect is basically the same. In addition, in 1st video, you are attacking in almost exactly 90 degrees, and in the 2nd video, you are attacking from 45 degrees which makes sloped armor.

 

how can the effect be the same if in the first video the icon of the whole tank disappeared for all. And in the second video, the icons of all the tanks remained intact, although I attacked them from all angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new tank DM still needs further tweaking. Attacking a tank column in TAW is much harder than it needs to be, and this is not the fault of TAW admins. A de-tracked tank is not always given as a 'kill'. And once it is de-tracked it for some reason seems like it refills a 'health bar' and becomes even harder to kill. Just try for yourself in QMB with different planes, 129, IL-2, 87 with 37mm, and you will see.

To get an IL-2/Stuka in a position to properly use large cannons to strafe tanks in TAW was always a very difficult task that required good air cover, and more importantly AA suppression. With this new tank DM, you could do all of these things correctly, but still shoot at a tank that appears to be alive - but actually isn't. And in planes with very limited 37mm rounds, you have to make every shot count. You could waste 1/3 of your ammo before you just have to give up on the tank figuring it's already destroyed. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =LG=Leutnant_Artur said:

STOIKIY I am afraid you must ask game devs not us the TAW devs as we did nothing with tanks. Cheers.

 

so, if u do nothing why in singplayer im kill pz3 from 5-8 shots?  and on yr server needs more like 20-30 hits?

Edited by STOIKIY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StG77_Kondor said:

You could waste 1/3 of your ammo before you just have to give up on the tank figuring it's already destroyed.

 

^This

The 72AG Training server mission got updated and now the detracked tanks disappear 20 or 30 seconds after they count as destroyed. Maybe you can make it so in TAW as well? At least as a temporary hotfix until the tank DM gets improved, so this would prevent the annoying detracked tanks (which are already counted as destroyed) from making players waste time trying to kill them?

I know IRL it was hard to determine if a tank was neutralized or not, however a detracked tank wouldn't count as destroyed (it could be retrieved and repaired), and also IRL having the tracks broken didn't suddenly make them much more resistant to damage. Ideally this would count as damage (yet not destroyed) and the actual destroyed status would be given when it explodes or gets set on fire via ammo/fuel tank.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The 72AG Training server mission got updated and now the detracked tanks disappear 20 or 30 seconds after they count as destroyed. Maybe you can make it so in TAW as well? At least as a temporary hotfix until the tank DM gets improved, so this would prevent the annoying detracked tanks (which are already counted as destroyed) from making players waste time trying to kill them?

I know IRL it was hard to determine if a tank was neutralized or not, however a detracked tank wouldn't count as destroyed (it could be retrieved and repaired), and also IRL having the tracks broken didn't suddenly make them much more resistant to damage. Ideally this would count as damage (yet not destroyed) and the actual destroyed status would be given when it explodes or gets set on fire via ammo/fuel tank.

+1

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

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...