Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Are you talking only about recent donators or all donators?

 

 

For the 3 lives limit, I wouldn't be surprise it will increase chute killing... 

So imagine you have only one life left. You finally manage to go in flight with your whole squad (which would be a miracle with all the restrictions). Unfortunatly you get shot down early in the flight and then killed on chute by one of those ******************************************************************* (no need to say how much I like and respect chute killers). Your playing moment is done... you can go to bed or fly alone on another server. 

 

 

I know you are trying to improve as much as you can for the balance, but I think the more you restricte, the more you kill team work because as somes already said, it will be hard or almost impossible for squads to fly together. 

On last campaign is was almost impossible so now... 

 

 

But at the end:

- the server will be full anyway.

- large squads will join other servers like Combat Box or KOTA.

So...

 

 

 

Definitly a very very very very very very... bad idea to me.

I have a feeling such as FAUCON that this may be the death nail of organized large groups.  There will be chute shooters especially over enemy territory. 

I do know when JG51Molders flies we fly as a squad.  If one cannot fly a server we will not fly the server. 

I foresee JG51Molders moving it's support to another server without GPS, with objectives, and without restrictions if these things don't change.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is said about the new balance system. Somes will agree, somes not. 

 

But... I really don't get the point of loosing your landed aircraft with more than 30% of damages. 

I know that a heavily damaged aircraft is out of combat for few days, may be few weeks... But as far as I know, our pilot just have to jump on another aircraft available on the airfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 30% damage rule simply because it might mix up the late war metagame a bit and force people into suboptimal aircraft in their lineup to keep the fight going while repairs are made. 

More importantly it makes damaging aircraft important, which I think is something underrepresented.   As it stands, we've had pilots smashing into each other to utterly annihilate an enemy because if there is *any* chance of that plane making back home, any damage dealt to it was pointless. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Donations can mean US$ 1 if you can play this game you have it. No unnecessary drama here guys. Besides that there is no free lunch and supporting the server costs it is important. TAW devs already work for free for everybody fun coding the server, website, etc

No unnecessary drama in the TAW forum would be a first. 

 

No free lunch is a very valid point but an extra life per map or an additional aircraft slot would have been less devisive. TBH a simple acknowledgment is all most would need. As it is the offer of a priority queueing system is offered yet there is no word on if this applies to past contributions or current donations or subscriptions or if amounts are factored or as is assumed $1 one offs are as good as anything.  Nor is there any detail on what happens when everyone queing is a "donator" (you are effectively back to square one but with a false promise of benefit) or what if any guards are in place when a non donator has been constantly queue jumped by $1 donator after $1 donator for the duration of the map. Finally we have how long in between donating and that donation being registered in the server takes. Currently the website says 8 weeks before your name appears. And now we are looking at a protential situation where the admin is swamped with $1 one offs. 

 

Im sorry but the proposition very much smacks of playing on the popularity of the server and the difficulty people regularily face joining it without offering any real guarantee or benefit. I have no issue with incentives to donate at all but this one just doesnt seem very well thought out to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Whatever is said about the new balance system. Somes will agree, somes not. 

 

But... I really don't get the point of loosing your landed aircraft with more than 30% of damages. 

I know that a heavily damaged aircraft is out of combat for few days, may be few weeks... But as far as I know, our pilot just have to jump on another aircraft available on the airfield.

In this case You could fly on another aircraft if you have one else ( I think the same type if You have). This will eliminate the case of this pilot who tried to destroy TAW during the last campaign (let his name be forgotten forever) and land without an extended chassis to gain a few minutes and start the next flight as soon as possible. Now he will not be able to do that. That's what it's all about. You just had to find a simple solution to this pathological situation. Other changes (eg 3 lives) are also definitely the aftermath of those events.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

No unnecessary drama in the TAW forum would be a first. 

 

No free lunch is a very valid point but an extra life per map or an additional aircraft slot would have been less devisive. TBH a simple acknowledgment is all most would need. As it is the offer of a priority queueing system is offered yet there is no word on if this applies to past contributions or current donations or subscriptions or if amounts are factored or as is assumed $1 one offs are as good as anything.  Nor is there any detail on what happens when everyone queing is a "donator" (you are effectively back to square one but with a false promise of benefit) or what if any guards are in place when a non donator has been constantly queue jumped by $1 donator after $1 donator for the duration of the map. Finally we have how long in between donating and that donation being registered in the server takes. Currently the website says 8 weeks before your name appears. And now we are looking at a protential situation where the admin is swamped with $1 one offs. 

 

Im sorry but the proposition very much smacks of playing on the popularity of the server and the difficulty people regularily face joining it without offering any real guarantee or benefit. I have no issue with incentives to donate at all but this one just doesnt seem very well thought out to me. 

That's why my main proposition was a 2 server campaign. It solves the main problems of not enough slots but people will probably have to give away one beer or two per month to help with the costs.

 

It would be awesome to have a south map campaign on Kuban with long range shipping strikes :)

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is my opinion/feedbacks about the various stuffs I've read here until now. ( no offence to anyone intended, be clear )

I'm new to the TAW campaign but I flew in the past many online campaigns in various WW2 flight-sims so I would like to share what are the main things that I've noted while participating at them.

 

Said so...

 

In my opinion what makes the fortune ( or not ) of a server like this one, that tries to replicate a " WW2 realistic " environment, it's the number of players who will fly bomber and ground attack sorties. ( Because they have the major impact on the dynamic campaign )

The server should stimulate, as much as possible, the use of the aircraft deputed to this role ( in particular I'm referring to bombers and heavy fighters ) with the fighters deputed to a sort of " secondary role " ( Where their major role is to provide air cover for the bombers and their secondary one are the " Free Hunt " missions ) and let chose more precisely the role that a pilot will cover ( Fighter, Bomber or Heavy fighter pilot ).

Instead of the 3 life system, that was clearly " thought and used ", to try to avoid of having players just joining the server and then having only big furballs or acting like a " flying dick ",  I think that should be much more better to limit the types of aircraft available and the pilot roles.

The server should have a general aircraft types  pool available ( but that permits to all players to play ) but that at the same time stimulate the pilots to not waste them in a useless way.

 

I make an example based on my actual aircraft availability ( reported on my pilot profile ).

 

I have: 2 fighters , 1 heavy-fighter, 2 dive bombers, 3 bombers and 1 transport aircraft at my disposal.

But I'm a heavy fighter pilot ( I fly mainly the Bf 110 ) and I fly fighters only rarely and mainly during late war years ( the Fw 190 carring bombs used for ground attacks ).

 

So in theory I have some aircraft that are currently detracting from the Blue side pool and that most probably I will never fly.

Namely: The bombers, the transport plane, the dive bombers and the fighters ( at least one of them is not actually necessary ).

 

As you can note I have at my disposal only one heavy fighter ( while instead I would like to have more of them available because is my primary pilot role ) and lot of other aircraft that can be considered only as " secondary choises ".

Said in brief this means that I will be very limited in my primary role of Zerstörerflieger ( just 1x Bf 110 available ) while instead I'm stimulated to use more the fighters because I have 2 of them available. The others will be not used at all ( I've never flown a bomber in this game) so, in my opinion these " not used " aircraft should go to a pilot eager to play as a bomber pilot ( that surely will need them more due to the dangerousness of his task ).

Add to this that I have only 3 lives available and this means that after that I'll be shoot down in the Bf 110 I'll be " forced " to fly  a fighter. ( At least until the  new aircraft supplies will not arrive ).

Permit me to say that this system could seems not a lot " attractive " to me due to the motives listed above.

 

One of the most beautifull dynamic campaigns that I ever flown was the " Storm of War " one.

Here follow some tips and features that were used in that campaign about this aspect and that may be of help to the server Admins to possibly plan, in the future campaigns, a better system:

 

- The players were divided between registered players and casual player.

 

The first ones have at their disposal a certain number of aircraft available for the beginning of the campaign ( For example: 40 Bf 109s, 20 Bf 110s, 60 medium bombers, 30 dive bombers ) that must be divided between the various LW luftwaffe squadrons ( before the campaign began every unit puts up their aircraft requests to the server admins that, then, following the aircraft availability they were provided ( or not ) by the server Admins.

The initial batch of aircraft available was quite limited in numbers so every unit have to coordinate first with the other units to make a sensible request. ( the aircraft initial availability was based on a historical research and then was estimated a correct value for the game so to provide a similar balance in the campaign ).

The casual players had instead a lot more restric aircraft pool ( just some bombers and fighters ) and they were not permitted to join during the campaign main events.

 

- The players were handled in this way: Priority for the registration to the campaign was given to virtual squadrons.

Lone pilots without a unit but that wanted to join the campaign should have asked to a virtual unit to join it for the duration of the campaign. ( So in this way there is a preliminary " player filter " made by the units and not by the server admins because with the system the " known flying dicks " were take out of the campaign pretty easily ).

Everything else was considered as a " Casual player ". 

 

- Every registered unit had a own airfield where only that unit is permitted to spawn ( So pilots of another unit or casual players can't spawn there ). In the case that there wasn't enough airfields available for all the units participating to the campaign an airfield could be shared by other 2 squadrons

 

- About the aircraft there was a replenish system working in this way. When needed a unit put up an aircraft request to the admin. .At the most distant airfield from the frontline the supply aircraft were delivered there then every unit have to fly their requested aircraft supplies from that airfield to their home base to let become the aircraft available at it.

 

- An aircraft must land on a friendly airfield or in an area close to it  otherwise was considered lost. Damaged aircraft were going under repair and due to this they will took more time before being available again. All aircraft not included in this categories were considered as lost and detracted from the aircraft pool of that side.

The replenishment aircraft number was limited  so every unit was very careful in depleting its aircraft.

If a side depleted all its aircraft, it have to wait until new aircraft were becoming available.

Aircraft transfers were possible between units so to stimulate unit collaboration if needed.

 

This was just written to show that a possible better system about this can be developed ( without using the 3 lives system that in my opinion is too rigid ). I'm available for any additional questions you may have or to help if possible.

 

My best regards and keep up the good work!!! S! 

Edited by SKG210_Werner_Molders
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, ECV56_Necathor said:

Thank you for this new edition

Lets test this changes, live count on my opinion will increase the chute kills, will be good if you can disconnect after 3 seconds max.

 

 

I’m in agreement with Necathor on this.  Before, getting killed in a chute only affected ones streaks, k/d ratio, ego in some cases :).  Now, it affects your ability to fly, much more, given the life counter.  It will, thus, even more be encouraged for those that have already utilized that tactic, and then some.

 

That said, since it does impact possible flight time, plus the balancing changes just incorporated, I strongly suggest the wait time of 15 seconds before ending a sortie/respawning be reduced!

 

Thanks for your consideration =LG=, and for the changes you thought over and implemented this round.

 

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

You will see just in one week that you are wrong.

Different setting different result, we will see it is good or not. But for now I like the new rules, you can have your choice:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

But... I really don't get the point of loosing your landed aircraft with more than 30% of damages. 

I know that a heavily damaged aircraft is out of combat for few days, may be few weeks... But as far as I know, our pilot just have to jump on another aircraft available on the airfield.

This is because people would just belly land at high speed just to get back up in the air quicker.  Rarely are you able to RTB with 30 percent combat damage.  

 

Edited by -332FG-Garven
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 3:45 PM, Carl_infar said:

 

I'm sorry but the thing You fail to see ( i think I wrote about it before ,but might be mistaken...), is that the "bad weather" we have in TAW is not the bad weather You are speaking of.

Its only "less good weather" with decent visibility of minimum around 8km, ridicululsy high cloud base of 1600 m (minimum which I remeber) but ususally 2k +. And light rain or snow.

 

 

Hi Carl - the bad weather I refer to is rain conditions. At no point I have said it's un-flyable.

I'm saying - historically operations were not flown in those conditions. Go to wikipedia and see battle of Bulge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

" The Germans had attacked a weakly defended section of the Allied line, taking advantage of heavily overcast weather conditions that grounded the Allies' overwhelmingly superior air forces. " That statement is Vague (I know) and I'm generalizing, but please - provide contradicting documentation saying that operations were flown as de facto in rain and snow.

 

I'm not suggesting we should not fly at overcast conditions... Rain is 2 steps worse than that. If we can have weather with showers of rain - I'm still all good!

And I would argue that in rain conditions we saw at the server the visibility was about than 2km - my opinion, not a fact 🙂

Just navigating in those conditions is a challenge and takes huge portion of the time of the pilot - probably the reason why there was no operations flown as pilots would get lost and separated.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is my take - If you want to fly as a large squadron, dogfight format is not it. I think if the developers had used the Hyperlobby concept - Building a chat room with  Co-Op slots than can be adjusted to the number of players the host wants like in the IL-2FB  VEF, VOW, DiD, SODE days. You can have an 8 vs 8 or 16 vs 16 but the drawback here is you are now flying a single mission and the log file has to be uploaded. We all know of the cheating/issues this caused not to mention the server side headache.

 

I think for units are 5+ in size, you will have to take turns :) flying while others wait.

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Donations can mean US$ 1 if you can play this game you have it. No unnecessary drama here guys. Besides that there is no free lunch and supporting the server costs it is important. TAW devs already work for free for everybody fun coding the server, website, etc

 

I understand that the server op wants to say "Thank You" to the donors by giving them the faster access.  The server op did not solicit, to this original group, that their donations would get them this perk. It was purely meant as a nice surprise. The problem is that now this perk is in place, future donors may assume that they can pay for preferential treatment.   

 

This is truly walking a fine line between rewarding present donors with a nice surprise (preferential treatment) to said 'nice surprise' becoming (for future "donors") a selling point in what has become a microtransaction-based private business, instead of a way to alleviate some of the costs of running a server. 

I know it's dumb but, if people intend to "buy" the faster queueing perk instead of simply support the costs of the server, that perk now becomes a product.

 

Sadly, you might want to see if 1C disagrees with me before you give any new donors any 'special rewards'.  If I can see it this way, I'm sure someone on their legal team can as well.  We don't want to see TAW knocked-off because money changed hands for the wrong reasons. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2019 at 7:26 AM, LLv24_Kessu said:

About bad weather: the airplanes at WWII can not be considered really as All Weather airplanes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that if the weather was bad - planes where grounded and nobody flew. Especially not any operations. (For example: battle of the Bulge, or Ardennes operation - Germans were successful as long as the weather stayed overcast and Allies could not bomb their panzers).

 

Hence I suggest one removes the really bad weather from the rotation altogether. There would have little to no air activity, and this is a flight simulator - pilots would have enjoying drinks of different colors at their clubs or shelters.

 

 

 

 

Why then do WWII aircraft have the ability to fly on instruments?

 

Answer of course is for low visibility due to low light or bad weather. Your focus on one battle is misleading. There where plenty of poor weather flight operations. They are not ideal but they did happen. D-Day for example..... Poor weather.

 

I can also cherry pick WWII era photos with aircraft flying in overcast. Saying it didn't happen is wrong. Saying it happened as little as possible would be accurate.

 

The % poor weather comes up is under %10 from an earlier post. That's not terrible for winter on the Eastern Front. I feel it adds a fun dynamic and when you are in an I16 having somewhere to hide is nice.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Sadly, you might want to see if 1C disagrees with me before you give any new donors any 'special rewards'.  If I can see it this way, I'm sure someone on their legal team can as well.  We don't want to see TAW knocked-off because money changed hands for the wrong reasons. 

 

Well I think as long as it is a "donation" - there is nothing illegal about the transaction. It is a donation to keep the server running nothing more.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Well I think as long as it is a "donation" - there is nothing illegal about the transaction. It is a donation to keep the server running nothing more.

 

 

The problem, as I said in the post you quoted, is that donating to sustain the amount of time the server can stay running and maintained is not a problem.   

 

Giving donors a surprise gift of a preferential perk is not a problem either.  The operative word is "surprise".

 

The expectation by future donors that they can now pay for this perk and get preferential treatment as well, might be. 

 

The perk itself becomes the product for sale, not the server - which only accepts donations on the basis that the operator will continue the server until it is no longer feasible, even if not 1 single penny is donated.  

The perk itself becomes no different to anybody (except the group that received it by surprise) than if the server op said, "Donate today and get +20% splash damage on all the bombs you use during the campaign!".  It sets an expectation that one is purchasing perks rather than simply contributing to the lifespan of a server they want to not go away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Few important things about 3 lives rule.

1.Imagine you used all 3 lives and get a ban for 24 hrs. Then you get +1, get airborne and get shot again. So you are banned for another 24 hrs. If a map takes several days, it's not gonna be fun for you anymore because each death (not 3 for as long as the current map runs) will put you on hold for 24 hrs.

2.Also, with this new rule, it doesn't make too much sense to fly on a plane other than a top one or the one you have less skills to fly in because you increase your chance to be shot and loose your precious life.

3.Another example, you get on 6 of an enemy. At the same time you get your own 6. You wouldn't pull away because if you shoot the plane, he would be killed or captured thus loosing the pilot's life. But you can bail out easily because you won't loose the life/point as it's your territory. Lost plane vs opponent life point... obvious conclusion.

Edited by 72AG_Obi

Share this post


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

 

Then why do the WWII aircraft have the ability to fly on instruments?

 

The navigation aids available in a standard WWII fighter  (i.e. instruments, maps and radio equipment) are not sufficient for a pilot to effectively fly a combat mission without visual reference to the ground. In modern day aircraft with a HUD,  DME (Distance measuring equipment) , VOR(VHF Omni-Directional Range equipment) and RADAR, all weather fighter aircraft are the norm - in WWII not so much.

 

Without good visual references to effectively and efficiently navigate with (i.e. the ground), ask yourself, how would a single fighter pilot navigate to the target area, engage any enemy they can't see and somehow make it home? 

 

Now for the money part: It cost (...my rough estimation) to train a US fighter pilot today factoring time/money/equipment/labor we are talking roughly $10 Million USD. Thus, in the 1940s factoring a cumulative rate of inflation of 1600% (b/w 1944 - 2019), let's say $500,000 USD to train a US pilot. Now the price of say a P-51D in 1944-45 would be around $50,000 USD (...excluding fuel and armament).

 

So, to send a mission of 12 USAAF P-51Ds into combat would be roughly cost: ($550,000 USD)*12 = $6.6+ Million USD (...this is per mission)! Yeah - not cheap!


Like I said before: No smart general would throw 12 aircraft into the air unless there was a high probability of mission success.

23 minutes ago, 72AG_Obi said:

Few important things about 3 lives rule.

1.Imagine you used all 3 lives and get a ban for 24 hrs. Then you get +1, get airborne and get shot again. So you are banned for another 24 hrs. If a map takes several days, it's not gonna be fun for you anymore because each death (not 3 for as long as the current map runs) will put you on hold for 24 hrs.

2.Also, with this new rule, it doesn't make too much sense to fly on a plane other than a top one or the one you have less skills to fly in because you increase your chance to be shot and loose your precious life.

3.Another example, you get on 6 of an enemy. At the same time you get your own 6. You wouldn't pull away because if you shoot the plane, he would be killed or captured thus loosing the pilot's life. But you can bail out easily because you won't loose the life/point as it's your territory. Lost plane vs opponent life point... obvious conclusion.

 

Yeah - I am with you. I think what TAW admin is trying to do is make us "care about of virtual lives". I say we see how this plays out. My guess is when you are down to that last life left, you will be like Erich Hartmann (flying at 8K looking for easy targets only and hopefully, you can bail out if your aircraft is hit).

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


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

 

Without good visual references to effectively and efficiently navigate with (i.e. the ground), ask yourself, how would a single fighter pilot navigate to the target area, engage any enemy they can't see and somehow make it home? 

 

 

 

Perhaps that's a good question for U.S. Navy pilots in the Pacific theater during the war.  They had to takeoff, navigate their patrols or attack enemy ships and return to a carrier that was also moving - often times under total radio and beacon silence.  They did not have anything but a compass, a stopwatch, and endless miles of clouds and ocean to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Time to carry rockets and 50kg bombs on my fighter sorties...

 

 

Every ditch gets a stitch!

 

 you-want-mirrion-dorrar-bad-here-bomb-fuck-u-new-19558517.png.0702ba4eda92aa2131aedf5bf2667f9a.png

Edited by CptSiddy
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG51Molders has many concerns with the "New Changes" and with everyone complaining about balance. 

 

Balance this and Balance that, let's balance the war.  Let's make people who never fly Allied rides fly Allied rides to Balance the sides.  Screw you and your balance.  Side of war are never balanced and anyone who thinks so is a moron.  The Balance of WWII came at the end of the Battle of Britain, when nobody was attacking.  I think Adolf Galland would have loved Balancing the war and Gabby Gabreski and Richard Bong were forced to fly German.   Now we have to balance the server by punishing the people who play.  JG51Molders already has 8 registered members who fly together.  Balance now dictates whether we fly TAW or Combat Box.  With the new "Balance Algorithm" if there are 25 Axis player flying against 20 Allied players, we JG51Molders cannot fly because the "Algorithm" will only allow 3 of us to join.  Since it's inception in 1992 BoseGeshwader26 and JG51Molders have always flow Axis aircraft.  We are not going to "change side to balance the game" because the Allied players cannot field enough players that will consistently fly Allied.

 

As for the penalty of having died.  Well we already have a harsh penalty for dying in the aircraft.  First penalty and the immediate penalty for being dumb, stupid, or just killed by a superior pilot is waiting a set amount of time before you can respawn an aircraft.  Some aircraft can kill you just getting off the ground.  Some aircraft can encounter an accelerated stall and flop to the ground and die from 2K altitude.  For these stupid flight losses of concentration "HI HONEY I'M HOME"!! give the wife a kiss mistakes that save a marriage can kill a flight.  A superior enemy pilot that you have a great encounter with but eventually lose because some random happens across your fight gets a tweaker shot at you and along with killing you damages a friendly aircraft that take 20 minutes of flight to get home (More on this later).  I have to sit out a penalty phase of up to 10 minutes.  And now with the new "Death Penalty Algorithm" not only do I lose my virtual life and have to wait up to 10 minutes I have to possibly not fly again for the duration of the map/24 hours of time.

 

The penalty for returning to base a badly damaged aircraft.  More bad juju my friends.  Say I'm in a great dogfight with an enemy pilot.  I kill him but he sustains 30.1% damage to my aircraft.  First it's a miracle that I can manage the engine well enough to get it to a friendly airfield that is active.  But now I'm going to be penalized for flying 20 minutes to save the aircraft that I'm in only to have it taken from me for 2 maps.  I didn't leave it in a field somewhere where a grounds crew has to recover it.  I flew it home.  I didn't crash it when landing so it's still intact.  The only thing you haven't done is taken rank from me for being dedicated to bringing it home.  If rank doesn't matter then why even have it. 

 

If aircraft limits aren't worthy of it then why have them.  If I destroy your airfield then why are you allowed to fly from it?  The "Algorithm" already prevents me from taking off from an airfield that has an enemy within 15Km.  If that happens and the enemy destroys my airfield then why can I spawn a perfectly good aircraft when they fly away?  But I return a damaged aircraft and I'm penalized.

 

JG51Molders will not under any circumstances fly Allied to BALANCE a map. period.  You make your choice before the campaign.  We have made ours.   We do not agree with many of the changes that have been made on the server but we will fly this campaign.  If we cannot fly as a group then you have balanced your game and with it lose us as contributors and members of the TAW community.  We feel the better way of balancing the map is increasing the amount of slots from 84 to 168 player limits.  Is it possible or is this something 1CSoft needs to address?  We are here for this campaign.  We'll take a vote for the next server to follow and donate to.

 

>S<

JG51_Ogg

CO JG51Molders

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Hi Carl - the bad weather I refer to is rain conditions. At no point I have said it's un-flyable.

I'm saying - historically operations were not flown in those conditions. Go to wikipedia and see battle of Bulge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

" The Germans had attacked a weakly defended section of the Allied line, taking advantage of heavily overcast weather conditions that grounded the Allies' overwhelmingly superior air forces. " That statement is Vague (I know) and I'm generalizing, but please - provide contradicting documentation saying that operations were flown as de facto in rain and snow.

 

I'm not suggesting we should not fly at overcast conditions... Rain is 2 steps worse than that. If we can have weather with showers of rain - I'm still all good!

And I would argue that in rain conditions we saw at the server the visibility was about than 2km - my opinion, not a fact 🙂

Just navigating in those conditions is a challenge and takes huge portion of the time of the pilot - probably the reason why there was no operations flown as pilots would get lost and separated.

 

1)

and I ask again - what was the cloud base and horizontal visibility? Was it the TAW 2k/8k or something wholly different?

As it happened in winter, the dew point was very low so Your overcast was skimming just above the ground plus most probably severe icing conditions - quite on the opposite end than our TAW conditions. 

 

2)

for the visibility in TAW you dont have to "feel" just check with the map what you can see - from what i've seen the worst was 8k horizontal visibility.

 

3)

Real aviation doesnt work with statements "good weather"/"bad weather"/ " its raining we dont fly " but it works with numbers: horizontal visibility and a number, cloud cover - and a number, cloud base and a number, wind direction/speed and a number...

So find the real conditions with numbers when the real pilots were not flying so You know what about are you speaking

 

4)

so you say that they were not flying when it was raining or snowing - it might be true when they would use gliders and had to find thermals to gain the hight...

 

5)

If you want something to read - read "Winged victory" diary wrote by Yates and find in what weather people were waiging war in machines that didnt even had artifical horizon or even turn indicator...

Edited by Carl_infar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its sad cause the admins are making rules that are making chutekilling really worth of it . Example:  A good fighter pilot bails on own territory and got 1 life left. Is he/she shooted death hanging on chute ?

 

This is worst change of rule in any online war in last decade..

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello
I did not understand who to send a PM to validate the registration on the red forum.
Thank you

 

I find that using two separate forums to "prepare" a strategy, and decide on tactics, is a very good thing.
I hope the players will use it massively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Feedback from me:  Love alot about the server.  Mostly the way it's put together and having lots of great opposition to fly against.

Personally, I can't stand being punished for playing a video game if I lose.  I already hate dying by any means - but it's a video game ffs.  Now you want me to place my  virtual wiener into a rat trap to boot?  I get to jam my fingers up my nose and sit out your penalty?  Have you really thought this through?  Why on earth would I want to do that?  I understand, your server, your rules, and if that's the kind of thing that gets your rocks off, whatever; enjoy.  All the power too you.  Just know my personal vote on that is "No".  It will likely be reflected in my not participating if this goes live like this.  It is something I strongly disliked about your server - strongly enough to post here about it - and I am concerned about this stronger direction you have taken. "Games" are supposed to be relaxing passtimes - to me - I understand you may feel differently - and I wish you well in that.  I just wanted to pass my feedback on the subject along.

 

Respectfully,    

Edited by JG51_Beazil
added information for clarity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

 

=FSB=Man-Yac will administrate the red forum!

 

So far we have 8 blue and 5 reds pilots!!

 

Spoiler


These are the forums for teams to discuss tactics etc! I don t know if will be useful or not!!

 

These are the links:

 

https://www.e-335thgr.com/taw/

 

https://www.e-335thgr.com/taw-red/

 

These are the instructions:

 

1. No open registration. Anyone who wishes to join must:

  • Register to the board http://www.e-335thgr.com/taw/ or https://www.e-335thgr.com/taw-red/
  • Send a pm in the official forum  (this one!) to me for blue team and to =FSB=Man-Yac for red forum , with  the user name and the e-mail that he used to register at blue or red forum
  • Admins will check the user names  and give permissions to view and post

 

2. After each round we can delete everything (users and/or posts) and wait for the next round!

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LLv24_Oke said:

Its sad cause the admins are making rules that are making chutekilling really worth of it . Example:  A good fighter pilot bails on own territory and got 1 life left. Is he/she shooted death hanging on chute ?

 

This is worst change of rule in any online war in last decade..

As suggested, if the finish mission/respawn timer were reduced from the current 15 seconds to something like 3 to 5 seconds, this shouldn’t be as much of an issue.

 

Heres hoping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To =FSB=Man-Yac!!

 

21 minutes ago, Axurit said:

Hello
I did not understand who to send a PM to validate the registration on the red forum.
Thank you

 

I find that using two separate forums to "prepare" a strategy, and decide on tactics, is a very good thing.
I hope the players will use it massively.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -332FG-Garven said:

This is because people would just belly land at high speed just to get back up in the air quicker.  Rarely are you able to RTB with 30 percent combat damage.  

 

Wow!! I just never thought some guys could have the idea to do that... :lol: That is stupid cause you doesn't loose so much time (may be 1min...?) especially as aircrafts can slow down very quickly with full rudder and gear/flaps down. Somes even have airbrakes. 

 

Whatever. I don't known what 30% represent... But if you manage to land correctly your aircraft with a damaged engine, and severals other damages (flaps, holes, cooling system, etc), after an hazardous RTB... and you loose it, that's sad. 

But at the end I think it wouldn't happen much and in that case it's still better than a ditch (1 mission after the current and not 3). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG51_Ogg said:

 

Let's make people who never fly Allied rides fly Allied rides to Balance the sides.  

 

I've noticed lately that a lot of those "Axis-only" pilots are switching to Red.  They probably want to get credibility in the coming months so no one tells them "Go back to Blue!" when the P-51 comes out.  

 

Other than that, I agree with you other points. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, LLv24_Oke said:

Its sad cause the admins are making rules that are making chutekilling really worth of it . Example:  A good fighter pilot bails on own territory and got 1 life left. Is he/she shooted death hanging on chute ?

 

Sometimes when I have the motivation and time I like to "compete" for the top 5 fighters (and I'm not the only one). I don't care about idiots criticize that way of playing. I mean what's wrong with killing aircrafts without loosing yours? It can help to win, at the end. Flying for a top 5 fighters doesn't mean you spend all your flights in the untouchable low earth orbit. There are various way to enjoy the game and this is just one from many. 

 

Just to say during a past TAW campaign, because I had an important air streak, a red pilot tried his best to shoot my chute... Because he thought I would have been pissed off. 

Chute killers definitly have a strange brain :mellow:

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, =RA=DerFreizeitheld said:

fsss. stop this bullshit guys and dont support this.... or wanna play alone?°!

 

+2 weeks and 10 points to gryffindorf

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

+2 weeks and 10 points to gryffindorf

Well done. Apparently you are a very bright head ... Do not you think it would be better for the people who have a question to offer a good answer? I did not say anything, just think it's sad people like you do not support the community with such answers ... I do not say anymore ...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i fly 1 time , take down one me109, return to the base and then cant respawn , then i try to rejoin to the server and got ban 🙁 wth?

Share this post


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

i fly 1 time , take down one me109, return to the base and then cant respawn , then i try to rejoin to the server and got ban 🙁 wth?

 

I tried right now to join server. Kicked back to menu, and banned for 2 or 3min... May be a bug.

 

Sunday afternoon, server over full...

May be we could really start to think about the idea of putting a second server... :lol:

 

EDIT

God we really need a queue system to join a full server...

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

That is stupid cause you doesn't loose so much time (may be 1min...?)

 


Completely wrong, you're not winning 1 min by belly landing like this, you win easily 3 min.
We are not talking about an emergency belly landing at low speed where you struggle to keep your plane in the air, we are talking here about a belly landing at 350 km/h, you didn't need at all to decrease speed or something, and you had your aircraft back right after it.

You multiply 3 min by 3 sorties, you basically gain 9 min on a 2 hour long mission (7.5% of total mission time)
You multiply 3 min by 5 sorties, you gain 15 min (12.5% of total mission time). 
 

And 15 min on some map configurations (for example in defense of an airfield attacked by ground troops) are enough to do 1 more bombing run than if you landed properly on every sortie during the 2 hours of the mission.
And 1 more bombing run in a scenario like this can have a lot of influence on the mission final result...


So yes this tactic can look like stupid at first glance, but it was actually really effective and had to be countered.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the airfields show "Attack" on them now. Does this mean we can't attack airfields? I heard both Yes and No on chat today and was not sure. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...