Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

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
Posted (edited)

It's clear that red side needs an alternative to combat the Para drops. However I feel that it should not be taken away from axis .  There must be some type of mission for the U2. 

Maybe Flak guns set up along front lines to give early warning of approaching enemy Or read outs of low flying ju52 .

I'm no map maker or campaigns , it's far too complicated for me on here . But some thing needs tobe done . IMHO . 

Edited by Con

Share this post


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

It's clear that red side needs an alternative to combat the Para drops. However I feel that it should not be taken away from axis .  There must be some type of mission for the U2. 

Maybe Flak guns set up along front lines to give early warning of approaching enemy Or read outs of low flying ju52 .

I'm no map maker or campaigns , it's far too complicated for me on here . But some thing needs tobe done . IMHO . 

 

Just one question. How many para drops did you finish?

 

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

TAW_map8.thumb.jpg.cf2554d8f2d21b5c4c44f5fe732252b7.jpg

 

This really needs to be addressed. Krasnodar is at 94% damaged and closed. Despite there is only 1 red vs 9 blues, here is simple question: what kind of logic can create such a suicidal tank attack to Steblievskaya. I don't think I need any extra explanation on this. Taw devs... please make the script logic more sophisticated.

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

TAW_map8.thumb.jpg.cf2554d8f2d21b5c4c44f5fe732252b7.jpg

 

This really needs to be addressed. Krasnodar is at 94% damaged and closed. Despite there is only 1 red vs 9 blues, here is simple question: what kind of logic can create such a suicidal tank attack to Steblievskaya. I don't think I need any extra explanation on this. Taw devs... please make the script logic more sophisticated.

 

Are you asking why the ground troops are still fighting when the nearest airfield is badly damaged?    Is there a connection, eg did Soviet tanks only operate if they had air support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:51 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

quote "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." unquote

 

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. 

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

 

I'm not so sure if it would take longer than 5 flights of Ju52, if You would have to start with po2 from back airfield, fly at its speed of 130 -140 kph and look trough those several areas  around enemy airfield (you can make even 5 of them around it). It would be more difficult than to find trucks, because the camps wouldn't be on the roads.

 

I think its really needed to give the reds a possibility to capture airfields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the campaign coming to an end, i want to say thanks to the devs for their continuous effort to improve TAW. Sadly this was the worst campaign i have took part in yet and i am looking worried into the future...

 

With certain people around it really makes you wonder if "organised" campaigns like ACGs are the future.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys - I know this is a game but seriously! There is what I call minor cheating (...I fly with dual monitors and a static map with TAW map in IL-2 map planner with my route drawn so I don't get lost is always on my secondary screen). Then there is major cheating like below.

 

I make tracks around the battle area to review, In reviewing this particular track, there was a Fw 190A-8 showing up as a Fw 190D-9. My guess is the person hacked the game so their Fw 190D-9 would have the 3D model of the Fw 190 A Wurger. 

 

I won't saw who it was - but let's just say I have enough proof to correctly identify who it is.

 

Not cool dude!

 

2019_3_23__15_14_58.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, this xJammer going to attempt to finish the map in a couple of days. Does one sleep?  lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

With certain people around it really makes you wonder if "organised" campaigns like ACGs are the future.

Wenn need more red players, that is the issue.

 

P.S. You want to play your way, that is fine, Just stop to accuse *certain* people who will play different way.

Share this post


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

With the campaign coming to an end, i want to say thanks to the devs for their continuous effort to improve TAW. Sadly this was the worst campaign i have took part in yet and i am looking worried into the future...

 

With certain people around it really makes you wonder if "organised" campaigns like ACGs are the future.

 

When you open anything to the public, you will get both like-minded and unlike minded people. That's just life (virtual reality is still reality, only with less governing rules (...like death)). This is the drawback of setting up a campaign on an semi-open dogfight server. Semi because the only barrier to flying is registering - nothing more.

 

=LG= and StG2 wanted this format for a reason - it suited their needs. We are just long for the ride. That said, they have always welcomed suggestions and that is awesome on their part. However, if you want them to redesign their concept to suite what you are looking for out of an online campaign - you are going to have to create one yourself.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

P.S. You want to play your way, that is fine, Just stop to accuse *certain* people who will play different way.

 

Stop trying to reduce the issue at hand to simply having different play styles.

 

You and the people you associate with repeatedly said that the devs could simply say that your "way of playing" is not intended and you would stop. Yet you are still at it.

 

Anyway, the devs are painfully aware of this little group of players and next campaign will probably get a major overhaul.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Stop trying to reduce the issue at hand to simply having different play styles.

 

You and the people you associate with repeatedly said that the devs could simply say that your "way of playing" is not intended and you would stop. Yet you are still at it.

 

Anyway, the devs are painfully aware of this little group of players and next campaign will probably get a major overhaul.

 

I hope the devs understand it much better than you. You are so proud of your activity on the TAW... Do you know that your 100..200 kills will not change the final score, don't you?

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 час назад, Norz сказал:

Wenn need more red players, that is the issue.

 

P.S. You want to play your way, that is fine, Just stop to accuse *certain* people who will play different way.

Already said many times, shooting AAAs and being able to destroy buildings in AFs with small guns is not a feature, it's a bug that was introduced by the setup of the campaign, and devs can't fix it quick.

This bug was exploited by xJammer and obviously KKs squad and some other players try to follow him from time to time.

As guys like xJammer wants to win by exploiting it, well, technically yes and devs can't ban him for it. Great example was map #7. xJammer didn't play it and that was the great map that lasted long and was interested till the very end. He came in again in map #8 and here we go... arcade stupid play style is what we see again. xJammer got killed and captured many times, but kept trying the same idiotic style. 42 deaths and 14 captures... jiz, I think this is the record that virtual pilot should be ashamed of no matter you win or lose in this type of game.

Should Reds follow the same way and turn this game into arcade style: who destroys AFs faster and finish the game first? Well, the answer is obvious, we are not that type of people, we want to play, enjoy the simulation and immersion of the real war, and I like the fact that most of the players share my vision, and that's what differs TAW from other servers.

I join those who thank TAW devs for keeping and making this server better each campaign.

Edited by 72AGs_Obi
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...