Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

not enough whit trucks, panzer limits has no effect too

 

Tanks 667 / 650
Trucks 2246 / 2000

 

If better chance for VVS (ground attacking) has no efect in map results, there's few options left for us.

 

BTW reds has no human option attacks for conquer (parachutes), we only got IA tanks option, who sometimes try to take noman lands, instead conquer AF, over and over, wasting resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

 

I agree that this could be improved - though I still would not call avoiding AA easy... or maybe I have a flak-magnet hidden somewhere in my plane 🤣

 

 

No AA in the sim reliably stops jagdbombing 190s.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

To be honest with you that comment is just bxll shxt .

Now you compare a Lagg3 against, Fw A3-A5, BF109 G2-G4-G6 just because we have a limit VYA23mm on the Lagg3. What a joke.

And many red pilots dont use the Lagg3 now only if it the last plane that they have.

I am not comparing. Just saying that there will be people complaining if you take out the Lagg3. I think you Necathor Know some really good pilots that likes the Lagg3. You used to fly quite a lot with rambo, elanski maybe, Myself. And for not that good people is a great anti jabo plane. Other reason to have it on the planeset is that there are people who has just the BOS and no BOM or BOK so some fighter from standar BOS needs to be there for this people. On the german side you have F4 and G2 and we can agree that the F4 is the best plane so is ok that the G2 was the choice. On the Red side you have the Yak1 69 and the Lagg3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Let me explain - LW is in all capabilities better then VVS.

 

Some of it is due to historical accuracy (better aircrafts) some due to player balance and some due to mission design (para drops for example). All of it currently favors LW. 

 

The biggest advantage this campaign is the ability to attack airfields without much risk. Why is the risk so low?

 

- The Defender has no way to predict the attack

- VVS does not have the aircrafts to stop a Bf 109/Fw 190 hit and run attack until the La 5 fn appears

- VVS does not have enough players to try to defend a remote airfield based on a guess.

 

Now you are saying that VVS has the same abilities and chances to destroy LW airfields but this is not correct. 

 

- VVS fighters are way worse then LW fighters at attacking ground targets due to bomb load and performance

- LW can defend objectives with a significant lower amount of fighters due to performance

- VVS has less players then LW

 

Ground attacks on tank columns are supposed to be the strong point of the VVS however it was shown in the past that the Ju 88 with 50kg bombs is the most effective way to deal with tank columns until the A20 comes along. 

 

On top of that LW always had the advantage of level bombing (depots for example).

 

In the past VVS was able to win maps despite numerical inferiority by defending and attrition however this campaign it is not possible anymore because LW is using the airfield/paradrop tactics. 

Most of the issues stem from the fact that there is no way to predict an attack efficiently. 

 

We will never get a balanced campaign however the goal should be to change the mission design that there is an asymmetrical balance. For example, LW has better level bombers while VVS has better ground attack capabilities. This is already the case but it is not supported by the current mission design. It would help VVS a lot if the tank columns wouldn't just be a single line on the road so that they can be easily carpet bombed. However i know that TAW will get a huge overhaul so i suppose we should just wait and see how things turn out. Maybe LW players should stop a second and think about these issues before they pad themselves on the back and tell themselves what a great job they have done ;). It is true though that there also was much better teamplay on LW side which is due to most big squadrons flying LW this time.

 

Okay - that's a long post - thanks for explaining your view in detail.

 

I'll try to be brief... here is how my opinion differs (and now I'm considering AF attacks mostly).

LW has better planes - in first four missions or so - after that things even out.

Prediction problem is the same for both sides.

With 10km sight range - defending is almost always futile - only way to do this is by having significant energy advantage and usually one catches the attacker only when he turns home. Hence the performance difference of the fighters does not make big difference. If the defender does not have the E advantage, the speed difference of 10-20km/h is not going to do the trick.

Bomb loads - as you pointed out, even cannons can currently take out buildings - so it does not make big difference for a JaBo if it has 500kg or 250kg bomb.

 

Personally, I find tactics and local number of pilots most important - which brings us to balance (which is reasonably good on EU evenings when I typically fly)...

Balance - I'm trying to persuade some LLv guys to fly red for the next one... no promises though yet 😉

 

Safe skies!

2 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

No AA in the sim reliably stops jagdbombing 190s.

 

 

It did not reliably stop anything in real life either. (In my book reliably is 90% or higher kill rate)

3 hours ago, TAWRed_HvB said:

 

I'd like to point out that the Ju 88/SC 50 bombing technique is an advantageous single pass technique, when you don't have fighter escort and need to exit the area quickly, and/or the column AAA threat is high. It is also possible to pull off in the Pe-2, and of course the A20B. When the opportunity for multiple-pass attacks exists and flak is suppressed, the 37mm-armed Ju 87, Hs 129, 37mm-armed Bf 110G-2, and IL-2 are much more effective for column destruction.

 

 

Amen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

Balance - I'm trying to persuade some LLv guys to fly red for the next one... no promises though yet 😉

 

Oh yes, taw will be finally historically correct when reds first time totally noobs ;)

 

I want Yak-7b starting from first map!!!!...

 

-veccu-

Edited by LLv24_Veccu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...The weather is favoufing red side 90% of missions . Clouds are same but 95% of my bombing missions wind is from east . 

...so VVS got downwind going bombing.... (I dont know if this have any meaning....just noticed)

 

...There are reasons why some players wont fly LW colours and otherway round. Lets just swap planes in next TAW.

LW have ...Ratas...Lagg...Pe-2...Boston ...and so on....and VVS fly 109...Fockes and Ju-88 :s

 

BIGGEST PROBLEM IN IL-2 THIS MOMENT IS 10KM BUBBLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, LLv24_Kessu said:

It did not reliably stop anything in real life either. (In my book reliably is 90% or higher kill rate)

 

This is absolutely untrue.  Extremely high-value locations were guarded with massive complex interlocking systems of AA that made any adventures totally suicidal unless conducted at altitude, at night and with extensive experience and a reasonable helping of luck.

 

Anyway, in the context of the sim, the only context that matters here, nothing is better in terms of being able to deliver a bomb onto a target and survive than a 190.  It is the pinnacle ground attack aircraft.  By comparison, I love the IL-2 and I don't think I will ever fly it on TAW again.

 

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

This is absolutely untrue.  Extremely high-value locations were guarded with massive complex interlocking systems of AA that made any adventures totally suicidal unless conducted at altitude, at night and with extensive experience and a reasonable helping of luck.

 

 

 

Suicidal? That’s why the blues can destroy airfields, because they have a number of players who don’t care about being killed, they will attack an airfield 2-3 times in a row being killed each time, but each time reducing the effectiveness of the AA, another example of gaming the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

 

I was playing yesterday, and when I attacked a convoy of trucks, they were invisible to me until I was about 25 meters from them.

 

Not all of the trucks where invisible, and those that I destroyed, their flame was visible but the truck itself was not. 

 

Is this intended? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see tanks in an assault formation spread out in a field closer to the defenses rather than always in a column.  Carpet bombing columns gets monotonous. 

8 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

I love the IL-2 and I don't think I will ever fly it on TAW again.

Yep, it sucks that it is only viable when  AAA is completely wiped out.  I imagine its the same situation with the HS129 and stuka.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

This is absolutely untrue.  Extremely high-value locations were guarded with massive complex interlocking systems of AA that made any adventures totally suicidal unless conducted at altitude, at night and with extensive experience and a reasonable helping of luck.

 

Anyway, in the context of the sim, the only context that matters here, nothing is better in terms of being able to deliver a bomb onto a target and survive than a 190.  It is the pinnacle ground attack aircraft.  By comparison, I love the IL-2 and I don't think I will ever fly it on TAW again.

 

 

Okay - I read your original comment as referring to one AA gun. " No AA in the sim reliably stops jagdbombing 190s. "

Sure - when you mass enough of them, you get the better result. Front AFs were not typically protected that heavily historically - sure, there was maybe more flak than what we have in a this game (which is limited by graphics and netcode performance), but there was also larger number of attackers - and some (I would guess most) would always get through.

Unfortunately I don't have any statistics on this from real life - would be interesting to get some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 5:02 PM, Carl_infar said:

For next campaign to balance the Ju52 paradrops could we have something similar with PO2?

For example if You dont want to go with landing on the roads, you could use the same mechanic/script which is used with finding of the enemy supply columns, but you would set a partisan/guerilla camps which had to be located to trigger the attack. Due to the fact that po2 is half as "fast" as Ju52, You could set up 3 or 4 camps (areas) of partisans to be found around airfield so to simulate the dropping of dispatches with order to attack the airfield by the guerillas.

The problem with Po-2 is that only one aircraft can trigger all 3-4 areas during one sortie. So one player could "quickly" capture the enemy city.

 

Maybe it's better to limit max number of captured cities by Ju52 to 2 cities per map. 

On 3/19/2019 at 10:45 PM, RedEye_Miji said:

German loose

Trucks 2109 / 2000

how can german lose 109 more trucks than he has....

BTW german side still creating attacking convoys, whit AAA = gun+truck

 

It's a soft limitation if more than 2000 trucks are destroyed then supply convoys are twice smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Sketch - it's a massive bug... Static blocks other than covered trucks and fuel trucks ghost... Makes ground pounding unplayable.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

No Sketch - it's a massive bug... Static blocks other than covered trucks and fuel trucks ghost... Makes ground pounding unplayable.

 

 

 

Yep, this is exactly what it's doing for me! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you. Hopefully the developers can fix the bug.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Maybe it's better to limit max number of captured cities by Ju52 to 2 cities per map. 

 

Good idea. 

 

One question, do you mean it like 2 cities for one mission (for example https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=394) or for all missions on the map (for the current map No 6 )?

 

Please check if + CM for Ju52 works properly. I lost my Ju52 last week but it was in my hangar 2 days after that (no records said that i got it after that in my mission list).

 

P.S. Does it work like that: you should get +3CM, if you have lost it?

Edited by Norz

Share this post


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

It would be nice to see tanks in an assault formation spread out in a field closer to the defenses rather than always in a column.  Carpet bombing columns gets monotonous.  

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
В 20.03.2019 в 06:36, LLv24_Kessu сказал:

I do agree though that RED should have Paras capability - maybe PE2 with a number of paras inside? And I would argue that the number should smaller than in JU52 due to physical size, and for balance (speed difference and defensive capability).

Just another idea. Is it possible after either team captures a city, the opposite team would engage a counterattack thus giving a chance to re-capture the lost city?

It can be a heavy tank convoy so that the opposite team should take efforts to destroy it in order to hold the taken city.

And worse to mention again, the devs need to think carefully and re-balance a given map if there is a huge advantage in the active players on one side. The penalty time, lost score, available planes might be different if you are killed defending against superior numbers over the strongholds (defenses, AFs, depots). 

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


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

It would be nice to see tanks in an assault formation spread out in a field closer to the defenses rather than always in a column.  Carpet bombing columns gets monotonous. 

I agree with this - but more for the fact that in reality as armored forces got closer to their intended target, they would - as you suggested - have spread out in some sort of assault formation to allow for more simultaneous engagement of enemy forces.  If the tank formations were changed just for the last cycle in TAW (when the armor is closest to the enemy town/airfield), it would make a huge difference in the air to ground battle dynamics, including giving the defending side a better chance at defending. It would likely take the attacking side a bit longer to destroy more spread out tanks since the carpet bombing with a string of bombs would now lead to much less success.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think this is so funny. I brought this up earlier and got yelled at. So I will try this again:

 

If the Red side (VVS) was given a Li-2 (license-built DC-3) - Paratrooper drop issue solved right?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Hurricane II A and Bs (2,000+ UK Lead lease) - Early war mismatch problem solved right?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Pe-8 - Heavy bomber mismatch solved - Correct?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the TB-3 even - Paratrooper drop issue would be solved.

 

Is that not short sightedness of the developers? =LG= cannot solve this issue.

 

Frankly - the developers were not thinking about balancing an online war when these decisions were made.

 

They were thinking "let's give them somethings to shoot at!" Period!

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Norz said:

 

Good idea. 

 

One question, do you mean it like 2 cities for one mission (for example https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=394) or for all missions on the map (for the current map No 6 )?

 

I sure hope it’s the latter (I.e. 2 cities/airfields per map #), especially if the Russian side has no counter to paratroopers.

 

Also, and I just noticed, another one sided affect/benefit of paratroopers only being available to one side:

 

Even though the German side has lost all of its tanks (Map #7) and can no longer capture cities/airfields that way (which is of course the only way the Russian side can capture), they can still capture cities/airfields with paratroopers.  So there is still a workaround! :)

5 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I think this is so funny. I brought this up earlier and got yelled at. So I will try this again:

 

If the Red side (VVS) was given a Li-2 (license-built DC-3) - Paratrooper drop issue solved right?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Hurricane II A and Bs (2,000+ UK Lead lease) - Early war mismatch problem solved right?

 

Is that not short sightedness of the developers? =LG= cannot solve this issue.

 

 

I hope my response prior wasn’t taken as yelling at you, lol :). Wasn’t the intent.

 

Hard to know the reasons the Ju-52 was developed/added and not the Li-2, only the developers can answer that.  Only shortsighted if they anticipated/worked out that =LG= was going to create an online campaign set up where transport aircraft carrying paratroopers could have such an impact! :).  Otherwise probably just supply/demand/forecasted sales...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Hard to know the reasons the Ju-52 was developed/added and not the Li-2, only the developers can answer that.  Only shortsighted if they anticipated/worked out that =LG= was going to create an online campaign set up where transport aircraft carrying paratroopers could have such an impact! :).  Otherwise probably just supply/demand/forecasted sales...

 

The community should do a poll and force the devs to add the Li-2 😎

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Cookie-Monster said:

 

The community should do a poll and force the devs to add the Li-2 😎

 

 

I don't suppose there is a way to let both sides fly the JU52 and force each side to have a particular skin that makes it very clear what side they are flying for?  Perhaps the Axis are forced to use the Richthofen one and the VVS are forced to use the Unique one. 

 

OK it is unhistoric but maybe a Soviet airline was using JU52s before the war broke out and they were conscripted into the VVS.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I hope my response prior wasn’t taken as yelling at you, lol :). Wasn’t the intent.

 

Of course not! I may have been exaggerating a bit  :good:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20 March 2019 at 9:55 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

it does seem odd to have a useless early war  fighter in map 7.    The P39 is available if you want to 'one shot' bombers and, tricky as it is to dogfight with,  the IL2 will kill tanks as easily as the Lagg (and probably dogfights better 🙂 )

The P39 I think I've seen it once in action In Taw .

What is wrong with that plane .. Lol . 

Share this post


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

The P39 I think I've seen it once in action In Taw .

What is wrong with that plane .. Lol . 

Its a good plane...for 120 seconds.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Hurricane II A and Bs (2,000+ UK Lead lease) - Early war mismatch problem solved right?

 

If i'm correct the I-16 type 24 has better performance than a Hurricane at low altitude.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Garven said:

Its a good plane...for 120 seconds.

 

Максимальная истинная скорость у земли, режим двигателя - взлётный: 539 км/ч

 

Взлётный (до 5 минут) 3000 об/мин, 51 дюйм рт.ст.

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I think this is so funny. I brought this up earlier and got yelled at. So I will try this again:

 

If the Red side (VVS) was given a Li-2 (license-built DC-3) - Paratrooper drop issue solved right?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Hurricane II A and Bs (2,000+ UK Lead lease) - Early war mismatch problem solved right?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the Pe-8 - Heavy bomber mismatch solved - Correct?

If the Red side (VVS) was given the TB-3 even - Paratrooper drop issue would be solved.

 

Is that not short sightedness of the developers? =LG= cannot solve this issue.

 

Frankly - the developers were not thinking about balancing an online war when these decisions were made.

 

They were thinking "let's give them somethings to shoot at!" Period!

I must say that looking at the way things are going for VVS it's not looking good . Every server is Axis .

Don't hold your breath for P-51 to make changes . If it's any thing like the P40 - P39 it's doomed . I don't see hardly anyone flying P39 . 

Also noticed flying red that there is hardly any communication at all in chat . Empty Ts channels and lots of lone wolfs .

You do get the odd Pe2 squad flying Tatical , looks great doing ground attacks but only have three fighters as cover . Seems odd. 

Axis is far more organised. .

That's what I've noticed flying red this campaign. 

IMHO The russain planes are easy to fly but let down By lend lease flight models . Saying that this could be down to me as not had much experience with P40 - P39 . 

I THINK The game developers need to rethink multiplayer.

It's been a very frustrating time on TAW for reds .  6 - 0 . 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Con said:

I must say that looking at the way things are going for VVS it's not looking good . Every server is Axis .

Don't hold your breath for P-51 to make changes . If it's any thing like the P40 - P39 it's doomed . I don't see hardly anyone flying P39 . 

Also noticed flying red that there is hardly any communication at all in chat . Empty Ts channels and lots of lone wolfs .

You do get the odd Pe2 squad flying Tatical , looks great doing ground attacks but only have three fighters as cover . Seems odd. 

Axis is far more organised. .

That's what I've noticed flying red this campaign. 

IMHO The russain planes are easy to fly but let down By lend lease flight models . Saying that this could be down to me as not had much experience with P40 - P39 . 

I THINK The game developers need to rethink multiplayer.

It's been a very frustrating time on TAW for reds .  6 - 0 . 

 

 

There is hardly any communication on VVS this time because many usual players, especially those who hang out in the TAW TS, are not flying.  If you went back in time one, two or three campaigns you would see the talk about poor organization flip to LW.

 

One side or the other having better organization is not a primary cause of the issues we see.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 6:20 PM, Norz said:

 

Good idea. 

 

One question, do you mean it like 2 cities for one mission (for example https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=394) or for all missions on the map (for the current map No 6 )?

 

Please check if + CM for Ju52 works properly. I lost my Ju52 last week but it was in my hangar 2 days after that (no records said that i got it after that in my mission list).

 

P.S. Does it work like that: you should get +3CM, if you have lost it?

2  cities per map ( there are 8 maps in total)

 

You should have 3cm to get a new aircraft and at the same time Ju52 if you dont have it. There is no info about it in sorties log, Ju52 is just added to the hangar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

2  cities per map ( there are 8 maps in total)

 

It is a bad idea. Only the players, who didn't play on Ju52 will vote to deny them. This feature makes the gameplay not like a straight line. Everyone knows that the AXIS team does not have any chance in usual conditions like blue tanks vs red tanks. Exactly for that reason they have Ju52, to make the chances not so bad.

 

Maybe it makes sence to limit them, but definatly not in the way like only 2 cities pro the map. Better to limit the count of Ju52 that you need for the mission, 5 ==> 6, for example.

Edited by Norz
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Everyone knows that the AXIS team does not have any chance in usual conditions like blue tanks vs red tanks. Exactly for that reason they have Ju52, to make the chances not so bad.

Huh?

 

Everyone?  Not so sure about that :)  There has been so much said about the anti-tank capabilities on both sides given the current TAW ground unit placement format (I.e. on the road in column formation), IMO this statement doesn’t hold much water...

 

It is of course more about the Ju52/paratroopers ability to bypass the normal means of capturing territory (I.e turnkey waiting for the AI tank columns to appear/advance, which is out of player’s control) that the number of paratrooper-capturable cities/airfields should be limited - as long as only one side can do it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think paratroopers are avalible because is another game option, a very intersting tactical option , and i think TAW is one of the best scenarios for use it

 

I read someone think AXIS no have any chance on tank battle....  i disagree , all we know if blue side made air superiority over tank zone... ju88 rear ju88 on carpet bombing, along 2 hours can kill a column, perfectly. And no suffer many loses.

 

In the othe hand... talking about chances... what is the chance for red side to capture a damage airfield with NO tanks.?   . NO chances. 0% posibilities. Thats all. is simply,   to be honest  I feel im playing to same game but with different rules .... not fair at all.

 

A game  be fair game if both sides  have same chances, same rules, same oportunities to do same things.  Other thing is how easy can be for each team, based on resources and qualitiy of pilots do one or other things...  This aspects are what do for use respective tactics for each team.

 

But the idea is clear, same chances, same oportunities, same posibilities , and you are near to fair game.

 

But  now the situation with paratroopers  is ,  if u try to fly serious and win map from VVS side, is a joke.

 

I hope on future we can solve this point.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

I think

.....

.....

.....

I hope on future we can solve this point.

 

 

 

P.S: Good, let us play the next round without Ju52, easy win for my team (red one for sure).

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I really smile Norz

 

Is true , i talk to much, and trust me, on my maternal language my post can be five times more long!

 

I no need play the other side my friend, try to made with me a effort... imagine we are talking about what is or not be  fair.. what is fair , and not is. U know football ? u think the referee need play in any team to talk about the game?  The answer is NO . This man need know the reglament, need experience.  I have many, many, many experience , i think more than i really want. I can talk perfectly about paratroopers.

 
 
Really, i no need play the other side...  un don't need , for view , what situations are fair or unfair.  The paratroopers situation is unfair simply because the other team have NO chance. 

You talk about tanks... ok , maybe for blue u can think  NO have chance, i say you are wrong... but  on paper, on theory, both teams starts with same chances. have tanks, and have airplanes and weapons, each side each weapons ... i'm right?  for paratroopers ,red really no have any chance. that's the point.

 

For me no matter what side u fly for appreciate this. For other people maybe is  mandatory.


People no need suffer injustice for know what is just. Is my opinion. 

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

I really smile Norz
People no need suffer injustice for know what is just. Is my opinion. 

 

This is exactly the reason why a lot of reds say that Ju52 is an ultimative weapon. They (Ju52) ARE NOT. 

 

 

 

Edited by Norz
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry if i explain wrong

JU52 not is a ultimate weapon..... depends.  Define ultimate weapon?

if u talk about weapon  avaliable for one side and not for the other side

then ju52 is like a atomic bomb... only one side have it.

Yes then i think is a ultimate weapon...

 

best solution is made avaliable Ju52 , this ultimate weapon :) to both sides, is my solution :)

 

 

what do you think?

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

Sorry if i explain wrong

JU52 not is a ultimate weapon..... depends.  Define ultimate weapon?

if u talk about weapon  avaliable for one side and not for the other side

then ju52 is like a atomic bomb... only one side have it.

 

what do you think?

 

I think that a red side is better than an axis side in some conditions like we have here. I said it many times before and can repeat it again.

Edited by Norz
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

No constructive talk here , no problem. Im sure is my fault.

See you on skies mate!

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...