Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

In my opinion the 2 major things that break TAW when it comes to meta are not being able to effectively predict large scale attacks and being able to do too much damage to airfields flying alone / with a very small group of players.

 

If these two issues would get solved, paratroopers wouldn't be so problematic anymore, especially if you nerf the effectiveness of them by increasing the number needed to get a certain %chance of capturing an airfield and by increasing the effectiveness of airfield repairs. 

 

The airfield repair ineffectiveness is one of the major key points when it comes to the current meta. Even with a supply level of 100% the airfield repairs at around 10-15% per mission as far as i know. It takes minimal effort to destroy the repair progress and to keep the airfield at 100% damaged.

 

In the end, i don't think it is difficult to identify the issues that lead to the problematic current meta but the devil is in the detail. 

Share this post


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

 

this isnt a bank heist, you wont get shanked for snitching, grow up ffs, if you have information on a cheater then please tell someone, let it be known who it was, even if it is to tell the il2 devs!

Forum rules say no accusations of cheating, so putting that information on here might get the post deleted, might get the thread locked, or something else.

If there is cheating going on, evidence should absolutely be forwarded to the devs. Cheating like this harms the entire community, it discourages new players from joining, it makes people feel like giving up on online play, and it harms the reputation of the game. if someone is actually dressing up FW190D's as As or otherwise hacking the game, the devs NEED to see that information so they can devise a solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 часа назад, Operatsiya_Ivy сказал:

In my opinion the 2 major things that break TAW when it comes to meta are not being able to effectively predict large scale attacks and being able to do too much damage to airfields flying alone / with a very small group of players.

 

If these two issues would get solved, paratroopers wouldn't be so problematic anymore, especially if you nerf the effectiveness of them by increasing the number needed to get a certain %chance of capturing an airfield and by increasing the effectiveness of airfield repairs. 

 

The airfield repair ineffectiveness is one of the major key points when it comes to the current meta. Even with a supply level of 100% the airfield repairs at around 10-15% per mission as far as i know. It takes minimal effort to destroy the repair progress and to keep the airfield at 100% damaged.

 

In the end, i don't think it is difficult to identify the issues that lead to the problematic current meta but the devil is in the detail. 

I would add few more things to it:

1. Ineffectiveness of AAAs over the AFs. Yesterday one of red pilots went over one blue AF in a fighter and was able to destroy 4 of them without even being damaged. Only horizontal bombing should be possible, all other attacks should be suicidal. How to do it needs to be figured out. Even heavily damaged (buildings, etc, on AF/Depot), AAAs should always be present and dangerous to attackers. The idea I think is AFs should always be well protected from air attack, defense lines against tank attacks. I don't think AFs should be closed even being heavily damaged, maybe for bombers but not for fighters for sure.

2. More intel scattered across the map so high-alt bombers should be easier spotted if they fly over the enemy territory and too risky if they don't have cover. The same for other planes that fly over the enemy territory and close to AFs searching for single bombers and planes trying to take off. Flying over the enemy territory should be as well dangerous with the high risk of being spotted and followed.

3.Additional efforts to balance the superior numbers of players on one side.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

Flying over the enemy territory should be as well dangerous with the high risk of being spotted and followed.

 

Wow. Seems that the next proposal should be to set the chance to be captured for VVS at the same value as for AXIS.

 

Now we have only 

 

"The probability of being captured is 20%  and 35% for Allied and Axis respectively. "

 

but for some players the risk is not high enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 минут назад, Norz сказал:

 

 

Wow. Seems that the next proposal should be to set the chance to be captured for VVS at the same value as for AXIS.

 

Now we have only 

 

"The probability of being captured is 20%  and 35% for Allied and Axis respectively. "

 

but for some players the risk is not high enough.

From my point of view, the probability should be at least 80% for both sides. It's more realistic. All want to capture a crashed enemy pilot, it's a very important target for all sides and very few were able to escape in WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

I would add few more things to it:

1. Ineffectiveness of AAAs over the AFs. Yesterday one of red pilots went over one blue AF in a fighter and was able to destroy 4 of them without even being damaged. Only horizontal bombing should be possible, all other attacks should be suicidal. How to do it needs to be figured out. Even heavily damaged (buildings, etc, on AF/Depot), AAAs should always be present and dangerous to attackers. The idea I think is AFs should always be well protected from air attack, defense lines against tank attacks. I don't think AFs should be closed even being heavily damaged, maybe for bombers but not for fighters for sure.

 

I disagree, i don't think that only level bombing should be possible especially when you consider that the upcoming DLC Bodenplatte is specifically about low level attacks on enemy airfields. However, like i said before, it should not be possible by only a few determined enemy. It should need a larger scale operation. 

 

I think the inefficient airfield repair (including AA respawn) was a bigger is issue for the meta then necessarily the attacks by itself. It is simply to easy to deal massive damage with low level attacks to have any chance to get it repaired back to functionality.

 

47 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

2. More intel scattered across the map so high-alt bombers should be easier spotted if they fly over the enemy territory and too risky if they don't have cover. The same for other planes that fly over the enemy territory and close to AFs searching for single bombers and planes trying to take off. Flying over the enemy territory should be as well dangerous with the high risk of being spotted and followed.

 

While i generally agree, it is a difficult topic and requires to walk a fine line between having too much spotting going and too little. I don't think that every single fighter should be spotted over enemy territory. In my opinion it would be the best if a system was in place that reports the more or less rough location of the enemy if there are X amount of enemy planes in the area.

However this won't fix the short travel distance between most airfields which makes defending a large scale attack impossible even if you get a warning. You simply don't have enough time to react. Maybe frontline airfields should get a player spawn limit of some sort but thats just a rough idea. It is difficult to get the balance right.

 

A lot of people are saying that the fighters/interceptors (no jabos) are useless when it comes to the outcome of a campaign and they got a point. Unless it boils down to an attrition war there is not a lot of need for them. Bombers don't really care about escorts (partly due to their inhumane AI gunners) and this should change and interceptors can't realistically prevent a bomb drop either. 

 

19 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

 

Wow. Seems that the next proposal should be to set the chance to be captured for VVS at the same value as for AXIS.

 

Now we have only 

 

"The probability of being captured is 20%  and 35% for Allied and Axis respectively. "

 

but for some players the risk is not high enough.

 

I am getting more and more confused by your line of argumentation. We are discussing balance on a broad scale and you are coming up with something that barely ever decided the outcome of a single map. 

 

2 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

From my point of view, the probability should be at least 80% for both sides. It's more realistic. All want to capture a crashed enemy pilot, it's a very important target for all sides and very few were able to escape in WW2.

 

Nobody can say if it is more or less realistic. As far as i know, and i am working in this field, there are no statistics about capture rates or something alike.

 

However i think most of us can agree that the current capture system needs a rework. I don't think anyone besides Kathon fully knows how it works but it is weird that you have a 80%/65% chance to escape when getting shot down at the depot and at the same time you have the same chances of getting capture when you are in friendly territory but close to the frontline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/23/2019 at 1:08 AM, Norz said:

 

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

 

Not flying Axis this time . As there are too many .

Not only do Axis out number Red by a long way and have won Six maps with ease . And yet we still find Chute kills even when Downed . . I can except ive been defeated in battle not real battle but game .

But i will  not except chute kills . !!!  A two finger jester  , there really is no Need for this BS.

Would like to say thank you to the people once again for the efforts for making TAW server .

This one has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth .

Edited by Con
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

However i think most of us can agree that the current capture system needs a rework. I don't think anyone besides Kathon fully knows how it works but it is weird that you have a 80%/65% chance to escape when getting shot down at the depot and at the same time you have the same chances of getting capture when you are in friendly territory but close to the frontline. 

 

Wow. Another great idea. I hope for you the chances should be about 100% not to be captured, right? You are one of the players, who stay almost all the time in 10 km zone or over the depots.

 

Right, we should all play in this 10 km area or over our depots.

 

Right way is  to modify the parameters from 20 to 10 and from 35 to 20%, more players will be motivated to attack the targets not only near the frontline.

 

 

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could do with some serious forum reformation, this just get people to hate each other and tears us apart.

Share this post


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

 

Wow. Another great idea. I hope for you the chances should be about 100% not to be captured, right? You are one of the players, who stay almost all the time in 10 km zone or over the depots.

 

Right, we should all play in this 10 km area or over our depots.

 

Right way is  to modify the parameters from 20 to 10 and from 35 to 20%, more players will be motivated to attack the targets not only near the frontline.

 

I don't know why you are getting personal again?

 

If you would check my flight log from the campaign you would see that i rarely flew at the Depot but i know that you like to push a certain narrative. But thats beside the point. Frankly i don't understand what you even mean by "10km area".

 

It is true however, and that's what i have said before, that it is a difficult thing to not discourage bomber pilots to level bomb depots but at the same time making it possible for the defender to prevent a bomb drop.

 

Honestly with the current parameters i don't see a lack of motivation to attack objectives and what do you lot care about it anyway? it's not like you care if you get captured/killed anyway?

Share this post


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

 

I don't know why you are getting personal again?

 

It is not personal. Try to invest your time next campaign with the jabo or level missions, after that we well discuss your ideas again. 

 

This war is the war on the ground. All your proposals will turn it to the war in an air (victrory by the plane limit). Is it better? I don't think so.

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Norz said:

 

It is not personal. Try to invest your time next campaign with the jabo or level missions, after that we well discuss your ideas again. 

 

This war is war on the ground. All your proposals will turn it to the war in air (victrory by the plane limit). Is it better? I don't think so.

 

It's a straight up ad hominem, look it up...

 

It's called Tactical Air War and no it won't make it into a purely attrition based meta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

It's a straight up ad hominem, look it up...

 

It's called Tactical Air War and no it won't make it into a purely attrition based meta. 

 

Did i say that we don't need some chages? But the general problem is the number of the red players. All these talks about "meta" will not change the number. Some small plane set improvements can do it.

Share this post


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

 

Did i say that we don't need some chages? But the general problem is the number of the red players. All these talks about "meta" will not change the number. Some small plane set improvements can do it.

 

Disagree, sign up sheets based on time zones will do it. Plane set get's adjusted every TAW and so far balance has not changed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Disagree, sign up sheets based on time zones will do it. Plane set get's adjusted every TAW and so far balance has not changed.

 

Europa prime time: 45 axis vs 30 reds. How can we solve it with the sign up sheets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Did i say that we don't need some chages? But the general problem is the number of the red players. All these talks about "meta" will not change the number. Some small plane set improvements can do it.

 

No you are just taking the easy road by being negative instead of adding anything constructive to the discussion. 

 

12 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Europa prime time: 45 axis vs 30 reds. How can we solve it with the sign up sheets?

 

Europe prime time was never the real issue (even though LW were taking up red slots). The real issue are the non prime time hours as you can clearly see on the graphs linked several times in this thread.

 

Share this post


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

 

Europe prime time was never the real issue (even though LW were taking up red slots). The real issue are the non prime time hours as you can clearly see on the graphs linked several times in this thread.

 

 

My last calculation said that the axis side has +35% more flight hours than the red team. These hours cannot be in the EU night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Kick spectators with a 15 minute ban after ~5 minutes and a huge loophole that was proven to be a serious problem earlier in the campaign will be closed.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

My last calculation said that the axis side has +35% more flight hours than the red team. These hours cannot be in the EU night.

 

pilots_taw_1d.png

 

As you can see, it is a much bigger timeframe then just EU night. (UTC-5:00)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for TAW devs. I consider it as a bug. If you get shot by friendly AAAs and bailed out, you got penalized by loosing the plane and negative score. It occurred to me twice, one was over our defense that I tried to protect, another one above friendly AF when I attacked a bomber.

I don't think the pilot should be penalized by dumb action of our AAAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it's over! Thanks admins for another fun time!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the campaign for all who participated.

 

In my huge 27 hours of flight, I had fun flying with my squadmates and doing missions. That`s what I seek from MP and that`s what I got. Simple man, simple standards for fun 😀

 

But improvement is good, I hope next rounds there will be some but it will never satisfy everyones needs, sadly. 

 

Anyways, thanks and see you!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the campaign! Sadly, I didn't get as much time in as I wanted but had a great time nonetheless. So, any idea when the next will start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 часов назад, Operatsiya_Ivy сказал:

However i think most of us can agree that the current capture system needs a rework. I don't think anyone besides Kathon fully knows how it works but it is weird that you have a 80%/65% chance to escape when getting shot down at the depot and at the same time you have the same chances of getting capture when you are in friendly territory but close to the frontline. 

From my opinion, chance of capture should be high no matter where you bail out / crashed. Far away from the front line, well, you are alone and how are you planning to get back to your friends through the whole enemy territory. If you are close to front line, it's even harder, with all enemies concentrated around and watching you crashing... they are gonna hunt and try to capture you for any costs. It was a fact that pilots risk their life to cross the border even in a heavily damaged craft; otherwise the capture was unavoidable. Why to make it different here.

 

My main concerns:

1.AFs/Depots AAA protection is very weak.

2.Plane guns should not destroy buildings, only bombs.

2.Flying low over AFs/Depots should be suicidal, way too much ammunition concentrated there to risk it left unattented

3.Logic for creating tank columns and drop-zone needs to be re-factored.

4.Flying over enemy territory should be dangerous and very risky with high chance to be spotted. I don't think enemy planes could fly freely over enemy territory unless they won air superiority like US/British in 45s but once again they were very visible. Germans just didn't have resources to stop them.

5.Penalty for suicidal missions should be greater (how to find out what it is, the source for discussion)

6.Re-balancing the setup when one side has an advantage in pilots (source for discussion)

 

Once again, the rules apply to both parties so I don't think that creating them for both sides should favor only one side. So it will only make the server more sophisticated and less penetrable for some cheap exploits by some guys with mental problems for winning)))

 

 

 

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for yet another super fun campaign.

 

Already cant wait to fly next one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

So, any idea when the next will start?

+1 week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for providing the best server in the IL-2 community.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I would like to thank admin especially and all the players for this great  campaign!

 

The best IL-2 event!:dance:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We would like to thank all of you who donated the last Tactical Air War.   

 

"LLv24 Sincerely StableAce" thank you for your big donation:good:

 

donate_taw17.PNG.2fa6e0cdbc28a553578108c088d46f09.PNG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StG2_Raven said:

We would like to thank all of you who donated the last Tactical Air War.   

 

"LLv24 Sincerely StableAce" thank you for your big donation:good:

 

donate_taw17.PNG.2fa6e0cdbc28a553578108c088d46f09.PNG

 

HI!

 

It´s a collection from the whole LLv24 Squadron.

 

Stableace though said that he financed a new TV with this but thank god he lied and money went there where it was supposed to go ;)

 

Thank You for the nice server and campaign!

 

See you all in next TAW!

 

br,

 

-Veccu-

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the Admins: Thank you! The best server and most entertaining emulation of air war in eastern front!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Admin for this great campaign.

 

After many attemptes the italian pilots, this time worked as one team with name of Reagia Aeronautica, we placed in the top 20.

 

Many thanks

 

Best regards

Share this post


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

My main concerns:

1.AFs/Depots AAA protection is very weak.

2.Plane guns should not destroy buildings, only bombs.

2.Flying low over AFs/Depots should be suicidal, way too much ammunition concentrated there to risk it left unattented

3.Logic for creating tank columns and drop-zone needs to be re-factored.

4.Flying over enemy territory should be dangerous and very risky with high chance to be spotted. I don't think enemy planes could fly freely over enemy territory unless they won air superiority like US/British in 45s but once again they were very visible. Germans just didn't have resources to stop them.

5.Penalty for suicidal missions should be greater (how to find out what it is, the source for discussion)

6.Re-balancing the setup when one side has an advantage in pilots (source for discussion)

 

 

1. No it's not. When the AA is intact, it's very dangerous and challenging to get out of there alive. Fast low level attacks work - just as they did historically. I think RAF specialized on the topic (that and night time lvl bombing). Problem is that AA does not get fixed fast enough and AF is vulnerably for several map rotations in a row.

2. I partly agree - but even now, it's not a single shot or even a single pass that destroys a building. Takes 2-4 passes - and therefore typically 100+ rounds of 20mm (or larger) High Explosive rounds. I don't find that unrealistic - and it requires a lot of time over the target area, - and if that is AF, then there is a warning visible on the map (or invitation to close by defending fighters)

2 (the second 2). No. Server does not support the player numbers to make this realistic - in real life, Murmansk had one of the most dense AAs in the world - yet LW made low level attacks against the harbor. Typically acceptable losses for a single mission were less than 5%, closer to 1-2%. If they were over 5%, the air crews got demoralized and even brass start to worry of attrition. If I remember right, after the first 1000 bombers attack to Germany (allied casualties 7% or so), mighty 8th had a one month break in missions to Germany to re-think their approach and to re-build the morale. If one ads more flak while player numbers remain the same, the loss ratio grows unbearable resulting in loss of jabo activity and soon players.

AF attacks were common tactic to prevent enemy air activity and should not be made impossible/suicidal. For example - study what allied did in Sicily campaign to keep JG77 of their back.

3. Agree

4. It is already dangerous. Problem is the 10km visual bubble. Wings of Lib has a radar on map that indicates location of enemy planes near AFs. If this could be implemented say with 20km radius on AFs and Depots... That would help the defence while still making attacks to these dangerous targets feasible. (IMO, nobody will fly lvl bombers if they can be traced more than that - again, player numbers becomes an issue to get fighter cover).

5. simple solution - death/bail out results always in a kick from the server - would increase rotation in the busy time. And bail out should be enough so as not to promote chute killing.

6. Balancing mechanisms easily creates new issues as has been seen. Even now it's hard to get enough of your own squad members to the server simultaneously - and if AF/Depots get more flak, if there is radar type prediction system etc - one needs to get even more organized than now to do some damage on these targets. For example, level bombers and fighter cover requires more players than defending a target.

 

So here are my suggestions:

1. Paras to RED, somehow...

2. Flak re-spawn at AFs and Depots at every mission start

3. If feasible, 20km radar to AFs and depots.

 

Ideally, I would suggest to admins to run a Gallup on possible changes on the front page of the server as here on the forum - we are few and loud 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the campaign. Even I don´t like a lot of things about the way is designed more like a competition instead as a war I kile the chanllenge and to have some fun with squad mates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should we play the second round with the same rules? A lot of teams play one round for one side. It will be fair for them to suffer (or to enjoy)  once more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again =LG= for another campaign. I have to admit that my participation this campaign severely waned for a variety of reasons, not all dealing with IL-2. 

I will say that how the campaign progressed, and how toxic the experience has become - it didn't help my motivation to play. I hope that the next campaign finds a way to resolve the most glaring campaign breaking issues so the game can return to being more fun and less like work. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, big thanks for the great campaign. I have only been able to experience it for the last few days but it was really nice. At the same time my first online experience in il2. I'm really looking forward to the next one. THX !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would like to once again Thank TAW for their dedication to producing a Server and scenario we could have fun on.
During this campaign JG51Molders was ranked 63rd (82nd last map) among the playing groups.

We look forward to the next set of maps and can only wonder if the "new aircraft" that are ready will make an appearance in the next campaign.
Congratulations to the Axis side for taking 7 of the maps
Condolences to the Allied Side that took only a single hard fought map.
To the pilots who were killed by me, Sorry to the whole 8 of you.  Maybe next time.  Maybe not.
>S<
JG51_Ogg
CO JG51 Molders

Edited by JG51_Ogg
fixing a fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, StG2_Raven said:

We would like to thank all of you who donated the last Tactical Air War.   

 

You guys just keep the server going - despite the unrealistic request of people that don't know much goes into keeping a LAMP Server up and running (...or maybe not ever know what a LAMP Server is - until Googling it after reading this).

 

People will never be fully satisfied, not matter what! 

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...