Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

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.

 

What ? WE?

 

How long do you play TAW?

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 минуты назад, Norz сказал:

 

What ? WE?

 

How lond do you play TAW?

That's my 4th TAW campaign. Didn't get your first WE? Is it a question or just simple trolling?

Norz, please if you can't say anything useful or logical, trolling is not a good option to continue.

Next time I will just ignore your message.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

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?

 

No need to get petty 🤔

 

The devs already identified the issue and stated their intentions to a degree. I can already tell you that your "play style" won't work in the future.

 

Edit: @Norz well i guess it makes no sense to keep arguing with you because as someone who is part of the problem you are clearly blind to the issues it causes. 

Edited by Operatsiya_Ivy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

That's my 4th TAW campaign. Didn't get your first WE? Is it a question or just simple trolling?

Norz, please if you can't say anything useful or logical, trolling is not a good option to continue.

Next time I will just ignore your message.

 

Ok. Just to be clear. There are about 100 red players who play almost every day. So, my question is, are you the voice of these players? Because i played 2 last campaign on the red side and my point of view is different from yours.

7 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

No need to get petty 🤔

 

The devs already identified the issue and stated their intentions to a degree. I can already tell you that your "play style" won't work in the future.

 

Yes, i can see the feature. Your every 50 kills pro map will set automatically the victory for your team.

7 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Edit: @Norz well i guess it makes no sense to keep arguing with you because as someone who is part of the problem you are clearly blind to the issues it causes. 

 

I can't see your nickmane on this page:

 

http://taw.stg2.de/admins.php

 

Please let the admins clarify what the problem is and how to fix it.

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 минуту назад, Norz сказал:

 

Ok. Just to be clear. There are about 100 red players who play almost every day. So, my question is, are you the voice of these players? Because i played 2 last campaign on the red side and my point of view is different from yours.

Yours is different and it's clear, I got it long time ago. My squad, some other red squads share my point, that's at least the majority of long time virtual pilots. And let's be honest, you can stand your ground as long as you want, but Ivy just mentioned it again, it was acknowledged by TAW devs, it's a bug that was not found during the testing or after updated the server's setup/settings.

You want to win by exploiting the bug that screws the balance and turns the game into arcade style, and protect those who do it??!! FINE.

We, and new pilots especially, who came to this game, need to be aware of what's going on and who are real heroes, what they did and why this campaign ends so fast and why reds are loosing this campaign so quickly. They need to understand that's not because the server is bad, or game, or the number of reds pilots... NO, the real reason was clearly spoken and articulated accurately.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

need to be aware of what's going on and who are real heroes, what they did and why this campaign ends so fast and why reds are loosing this campaign so quickly. They need to understand that's not because the server is bad, or game, or the number of reds pilots... NO, the real reason was clearly spoken and articulated accurately.  

 

For sure... The true hero are you and Ivy, 36 ground kills for 8 maps. Is it a new record for a MINIMAL result?

 

Again, it is war on the ground. Strange that it is not clear for you.

Edited by Norz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 часов назад, 56RAF_Roblex сказал:

 

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?

Yep, attacking with no air support and surrounded by at least 2 blue AFs is suicidal mission and just an easy and risk free target for blues.

Red pilots can't support nor defend our tanks. There is no reason for this attack at all.

8 минут назад, Norz сказал:

 

IFor sure... The true hero are you and Ivy, 36 ground kills for 8 maps. Is it a new record for a MINIMAL result?

 

Again, it is war on the ground. Strange that it is not clear for you.

I am a fighter, I protect our strongholds from blue bombers and I protect red bombers and win the air superiority. That's my job. We have bombers who can do their job much better but they need cover. You have a problem with that? It's nonsense you said such a dumb thing.

If you can't get it yourself then at least I hope you can figure out yourself who you are after such comments. BUT I am not gonna continue commenting your messages, just waste of time.  

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, 72AGs_Obi said:

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...

 

Maybe I don't understand? Are you saying that a 20mm or an equivalent round shell should not be able to destroy a non-steel reinforced building or a AAA gun sight?

 

Back in the days of my military service, I have taken a .50 cal (with a butterfly trigger) and destroyed a bunch of thing up at the range (including center block walls and light armored vehicles). I will tell you 1st hand and anyone else that has fired a high power weapon that they can do damage to most things than not. 

 

A .50 cal packs less punch that a 20 mm round so the damage would be greater. Think about it - both are made of metal (buttle and AAA)  but the AAA machinery is stationary, where the round has velocity. Thus - basic physics F=Mass x Acceleration.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


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

That's my job.

 

You can do what you want. Only one thing that i say again and again, do not say us how to play. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 часа назад, JG7_X-Man сказал:

 

Maybe I don't understand? Are you saying that a 20mm or an equivalent round shell should not be able to destroy a non-steel reinforced building or a AAA gun sight?

 

Back in the days of my military service, I have taken a .50 cal (with a butterfly trigger) and destroyed a bunch of thing up at the range (including center block walls and light armored vehicles). I will tell you 1st hand and anyone else that has fired a high power weapon that they can do damage to most things than not. 

 

A .50 cal packs less punch that a 20 mm round so the damage would be greater. Think about it - both are made of metal (buttle and AAA)  but the AAA machinery is stationary, where the round has velocity. Thus - basic physics F=Mass x Acceleration.

I served the military too and well understand what these guns are capable of.  So what's your point?  Should we accept the fact that the whole AF can be wiped out by fighter planes with small guns like that? Or you want to share your military experience? Please read the whole discussion about it. It's a bug how it was implemented in the server and I consider it as a cheating how some people exploited this bug in the game.

Both sides can use this bug, there is nothing special or geniusly unique about it, and turn this game into the clear shit arcade style small berloga fights over AFs basically killing this server and the idea of replicating the air war/ground experience.

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


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

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

Why do You think that it is D9 in A8 skin?

Share this post


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

 

No need to get petty 🤔

 

The devs already identified the issue and stated their intentions to a degree. I can already tell you that your "play style" won't work in the future.

 

Edit: @Norz well i guess it makes no sense to keep arguing with you because as someone who is part of the problem you are clearly blind to the issues it causes. 

I would say even more to this. Because of this issue and the guys who use it all the time and definitely will use it again, I have a strong feeling that next campaign will not be available soon due to efforts and resources that TAW devs should take to fix it properly and probably to attempt to identify other possible exploits as well. And that would be sad news for all pilots. 

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


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

As i know it is not under attack. To get it only one way is possible, Akhtyrskaya .

 

Yeah it got damaged when Akhtyrskaya was captured for a short while, thanks for fact checking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Something odd about the map - currently mission #421... Maikop is not marked "Defend", yet there are still hangars and other buildings and parked aircraft and such (landed there).  Shouldn't this airfield be safe from attack since there are no adjacent enemy territories (e.g. Ust-Labinskaya is back to Russian control), and of course there is no "Defend" on the map for the airfield as mentioned?  Obviously, the depot is just south, and that has a "Defend", but I didn't think this applied to the nearby airfield.  Also, there was a German aircraft there, as the attack emblem came up (knife, with the blue aircraft icon below), but the AAA did not spawn.

 

@=LG= can you check this out?

 

Thanks!

Edited by AKA_Relent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to implement some kind of a mechanic where it's not just "limited # of planes" but more specifically, a limited number of types of planes?

 

I.e.

Fights 0/600

Attackers 0/400

Bombers 0/200

 

NOT

 

Planes 0/1300

 

I only thought about this as a means to increase the realism factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi there guys. I want to ask you if you have the same problem but the other day I was making cover to our Jabos and the trucks just did not render unless you are just near them or flying tree altitude just over them. There were some tanks as well on the field outside the road and they just did not render if not with zoom.

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, =LG=Coldman said:

Why do You think that it is D9 in A8 skin?

 

 Seriously - I am not a snitch so I will not say. Until I see the person do it again.  Also I will not say how because they will just find a workaround.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

 Seriously - I am not a snitch so I will not say. Until I see the person do it again.  Also I will not say how because they will just find a workaround.

Ok i thought your screenshot was the evidence/proof that why I asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Map 7 was the only map played to the fullest. Shame how one guy  can ruin the experience for everyone. Back to FPS games I guess, game was fun while the nostalgia lasted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 минут назад, Cookie-Monster сказал:

Map 7 was the only map played to the fullest. Shame how one guy  can ruin the experience for everyone. Back to FPS games I guess, game was fun while the nostalgia lasted.

Agree, I can only guess once they see they can't win in a fair play, they switched immediately back to continue to exploit the bug saying all same bullshit as an excuse again and again)

We can't reason with these guys, TAW devs and their fix is the only way that can work.

Edited by 72AGs_Obi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Hi there guys. I want to ask you if you have the same problem but the other day I was making cover to our Jabos and the trucks just did not render unless you are just near them or flying tree altitude just over them. There were some tanks as well on the field outside the road and they just did not render if not with zoom.

Correct, Idk if this is some TAW mechanic but the AA trucks and regular trucks do not render until you are very close. 

 

From up above, convoys often look sparse and unlike their actual conditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I would like to understand why I've just been caputured, if I had an emergency landing in my zone, allied side of the map. I mean I was flying a spitfire and I landed inside the russian zone of the map (1533.1  at Kuban #432).

 

942893161_TAWFlyingspitfireandCapturedinAlliedzone.thumb.JPG.47585521c6d611a9d4611af83586488f.JPG1311311360_TAWFlyingspitfireandCapturedafteremergencylandinginAlliedzone.thumb.JPG.eaf5e7731d6b85a4ff1e1c44876fcb46.JPG

20190325_01121_MAP_1_2_.thumb.jpg.6c8fcb593f621e81da90f7ae542b10a1.jpg

 

Kind regards,

             Ala13_Knightcrow

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 2:47 PM, 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 want every single one of those babies in my hangar. Hurricane, yes please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another issue with the script logic I believe. Drop zone is located in blue's territory, protected by blue defense. How reds are supposed to 1.Find such a zone with slow U2 before it's got killed by defense. 2. Prevent the drop. 3. Why even the drop zone is located in the blue's territory, and not in red's zone, a square away from the field! Easy and risk free target for blues. All reds tank columns don't make much sense if blues can get the AF so easily. 

Looks like another "Mission impossible" for reds lol

post-10719-0-27089000-1553447926.jpg

 

 

Edited by 72AGs_Obi
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

 Seriously - I am not a snitch so I will not say. Until I see the person do it again.  Also I will not say how because they will just find a workaround.

 

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!

Edited by SYN_Repent
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding the Ju52. I absolutely love to fly it and I hope it is not removed from the TAW server. It is great for a noob pilot like myself to start navigating and help the team, quietly learn the tricks of engine management and go up through the ranks. Both historically and in game this is valuable work. They also work (or should) as food for the enemy fighters and be a beacon of action in the game as they need protection, specially on the paratropper missions.

 

Having said that, I agree that it is an important source of unbalance between the two sides. The ideal solution would of course be to introduce the planes for the VVS that are missing (heavy bombers and transports). That doesn’t depend on any of us so let’s move on. The idea of allowing VVS to use Ju52 with different skins (let’s call them pre-war ir captured) would be a good gap solution if the game engine allows it, which I am not sure it does. 

 

My solution for now would be the following:

 

1. Increase the number of planes needed (from 60 troopers to 100 or more). Possibly more than one drop around the AF to be mandatory for it to be successful. This would force a much bigger operation and/or multiple sorties. 

 

2. Allow the defending side to be warned that paras have been dropped and where. This way they will be able to react and attack the second wave, do a turkey shooting or patrol the area for the next ones. That means thatbthe Ju52 would start to really need cover, which currently doesn’t really happens.

 

Hope this contributes for the discussion. Cheers!

Edited by antpaisvieira
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
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

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...