Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

On 9/2/2019 at 10:27 PM, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Tell the nice officer, where did the La-5FN touch you?

La-5FN + Yak-1B + Yak-7B PF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [GCA]T1m270 said:

Bugged mission, 

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=68223&name=[GCA]T1m270

 

I came back and landed at active base, Karpovka, landed fine 0 damage.

 

Yet im ditched, and counted as shot down??? wat. 

 

 Same thing happened to me. I think you may have had a belly landing or as much a s prop strike / minor damage on landing. It is a bug without a doubt.

In my book if you make make it back to base or even 5 KM from base you should be OK as long as the airfield is open.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 3:27 PM, =LG=Kathon said:

I have a solution in my mind to this issue by a cost of the balance. We will test it in the next campaign. 

Rethink the balance policy with a small number of players. No motivation to make a flight when for example you're alone and opponents are 5+.

I think It's not fair.

14 hours ago, JG51_Ogg said:

Congrats,

Axis can't fly because no one wants to fly Allied at this time.  1 Allied 17 Axis logged in on server.  Go to spawn in.......You're in line sit and wait.  
I'm done with this monkey dookie.  Call me when you get the spawns fixed so a player logging into the server can actually use the server.

Do you like to win when you're not here? It's very brave )))

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A short movie I made of a paratrooper drop I flew this morning on TAW. Someone else led, and apart from StG77_Jeeves I have no idea who else was with us which is why I'm posting this here so people can ID themselves. (My replays don't show names on tags for some reason). Cheers all.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

I think It's not fair.

 

If this is about making the game fair then we should insure matching skill levels too. If one side has pilots with no kills then the other side should be limited to that as well. 

 

Also, all pilots should be forced to fly at the same altitude and speed and use the same turn rate as the slowest turning aircraft in the game.

 

The idea that the game has to fair is ridiculous because the game is all about gaining an advantage over your opponent. That advantage can be altitude, speed, better teamwork or, yes, even superior numbers to name just a few.

 

The issue of side balancing is not unique to this server or this game. The notion of punishing a side with higher player numbers with a time penalty is an old idea that rarely if ever works.

 

How about instead of hitting the side with superior number with a stick we give the side with lower numbers a carrot?

 

lessening the severity of the penalty for death based on the imbalance at the time might work. 5 to 1 at the time of death you loss only 20% of a life, 2 to 1 50% and so on.

 

If you die and your side is at a numbers disadvantage maybe modify the number of rank points you lose based on the disadvantage at the time. 

 

Give the side with less numbers an aircraft modifier based on the difference in numbers. 4 to 1 and the side with the less number all of their pilots who put down fighters as their primary focus get 3 top tier fighters added to their aircraft list. Bomber focused pilots would get 3 top tier bombers added to theirs. This number could be dynamic and change based on the number disparity at the time but none of these aircraft if lost would count against a pilot personal inventory. 

 

I dont know if any of the above will work or even if it’s possible for the TAW guys to implement but in my opinion what we have now is not working and maybe giving the side with less numbers an incentive to fly might be worth a try. 

Edited by JG51_Moostafa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Rethink the balance policy with a small number of players. No motivation to make a flight when for example you're alone and opponents are 5+.

I think It's not fair.

 

Yes, make the powah of ballance even more strict so people can´t fly in squads at all :good:

Edited by Ropalcz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ropalcz said:

 

Yes, make the powah of ballance even more strict so people can´t fly in squads at all :good:

If you like to play without opponents, then of course you need to cancel the balance

2 hours ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

even superior numbers to name just a few.

In all team sports, there are equal number of players in teams.

That's what teams are called. Only punishment can change that.

A team in a strong minority has no chance of resisting.

Winning the campaign is important to me. But when there are ten times as many blues, my flights are useless. So I'll do something else, and you can rejoice in your victory. But will it be worthy? How could you defeat an equal enemy? Could that be a cause for pride?)

 

Teams compete in skill, not numbers

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

 

If this is about making the game fair then we should insure matching skill levels too. If one side has pilots with no kills then the other side should be limited to that as well. 

 

Also, all pilots should be forced to fly at the same altitude and speed and use the same turn rate as the slowest turning aircraft in the game.

 

The idea that the game has to fair is ridiculous because the game is all about gaining an advantage over your opponent. That advantage can be altitude, speed, better teamwork or, yes, even superior numbers to name just a few.

 

The issue of side balancing is not unique to this server or this game. The notion of punishing a side with higher player numbers with a time penalty is an old idea that rarely if ever works.

 

How about instead of hitting the side with superior number with a stick we give the side with lower numbers a carrot?

 

lessening the severity of the penalty for death based on the imbalance at the time might work. 5 to 1 at the time of death you loss only 20% of a life, 2 to 1 50% and so on.

 

If you die and your side is at a numbers disadvantage maybe modify the number of rank points you lose based on the disadvantage at the time. 

 

Give the side with less numbers an aircraft modifier based on the difference in numbers. 4 to 1 and the side with the less number all of their pilots who put down fighters as their primary focus get 3 top tier fighters added to their aircraft list. Bomber focused pilots would get 3 top tier bombers added to theirs. This number could be dynamic and change based on the number disparity at the time but none of these aircraft if lost would count against a pilot personal inventory. 

 

I dont know if any of the above will work or even if it’s possible for the TAW guys to implement but in my opinion what we have now is not working and maybe giving the side with less numbers an incentive to fly might be worth a try. 

 

 

Have you ever played a team sport?  Like Lawyer said, you compete in SKILL not in NUMBERS.  Concentrate your numbers to create a local advantage if you like, but this comically arrogant attitude always evaporates when the person talking has to deal with the reality of flying 3-1, forever, for as long as they participate in the sim.  Regardless, why can't your JG51 fly VVS if you all want to fly together so badly?

 

The idea of rewarding the outnumbered side(VVS 99% of the time) is good, but the disadvantage of being outnumbered is not linear, it's exponential, and so should the reward be.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Teams compete in skill, not numbers

Absolutely agreed, but didn't someone once say 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'? 

 

Can't remember who though...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Absolutely agreed, but didn't someone once say 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'? 

 

Can't remember who though...

You expect us to believe you can't remember? C'mon, quit Stalin.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Absolutely agreed, but didn't someone once say 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'? 

 

Can't remember who though...

 

By that logic, we should limit server to 14 axis and 70 vvs?  

Share this post


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

By that logic, we should limit server to 14 axis and 70 vvs? 

Not in the timeframe TAW currently covers, but by the time TAW takes on the BoBP map & plane set? Certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, StG77_Darbzy said:

A short movie I made of a paratrooper drop I flew this morning on TAW. Someone else led, and apart from StG77_Jeeves I have no idea who else was with us which is why I'm posting this here so people can ID themselves.

 

 

 

Pretty sure Manberries was there and FeuerFliegen led it.  Don't recall the 5th pilot.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... a quick question about the lives system.

I had a terrible run of missions yesterday, resulting in me losing all my lives and waiting 20 hours (which I think is still too long a wait, but anyway).

Once the 20 hours was over and I had my life back, I saw that I only had 0.29 lives left. I thought I was meant to go back to 1.0 life after waiting 20 hours. Is the 0.29 lives correct? If it is, then the life system is even harsher than I thought it was, especially to players, like myself, who aren't particularly great.

Thanks for any help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

giphy.gif

asd3.jpg

asd4.jpg

I thought the lives system worked like this:
-Your lives go to zero
-you get 1 new life immediately after your lives reach zero
-THEN you get the 20 hour ban.
So you have a ban going on even though you have a life, since you got it before the ban started. At least I think so. 
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further clarify based on what I’ve read/observed ...

 

If your lives value drops to 0 OR BELOW, you:

- Get 1.0 lives added to whatever the current lives value is (e.g -0.71 + 1.0 = 0.29))

- Get a 20 hour delay before you can join/spawn/fly, observable in your profile page.

 

Thus, if you have a fraction life because you died/were captured while on the smaller team, as long as it’s > 0 you should be able to keep flying (after the 5 minute delay) - for example 0.35.

 

But if you then get killed/captured and you were outnumbered 20-10 at the time of this event, you would have 0.5 lives subtracted.  So given the example above (were at 0.35 lives), you would now be at -0.15 lives.  This would trigger the two events mentioned above (1.0 added, making your lives counter 0.85, and you have to wait 20 hours to fly).

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on the last map why is G14 simply not a thing. It balances against the FN quite well, and still served on the  Eastern front. Obviously its a 1944 Aircraft, but the 190 entered service before the g2 and yet we still dont see until after the g2. 

 

Just a question/slight suggestion.

Share this post


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

So on the last map why is G14 simply not a thing. It balances against the FN quite well, and still served on the  Eastern front. Obviously its a 1944 Aircraft, but the 190 entered service before the g2 and yet we still dont see until after the g2. 

 

Just a question/slight suggestion.

 

no

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

So on the last map why is G14 simply not a thing. It balances against the FN quite well, and still served on the  Eastern front. Obviously its a 1944 Aircraft, but the 190 entered service before the g2 and yet we still dont see until after the g2. 

 

Just a question/slight suggestion.

109G-14 was introduced more than a year later than the La-5FN. The 109G6 is slower than the FN but matches or beats it in climb and turn and out-dives it. The G6 is the more 'balanced' matchup by the numbers and is more appropriate timeline wise, plus both are collector planes so they are already rarer than the regular planes.
 

Share this post


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

109G-14 was introduced more than a year later than the La-5FN. The 109G6 is slower than the FN but matches or beats it in climb and turn and out-dives it. The G6 is the more 'balanced' matchup by the numbers and is more appropriate timeline wise, plus both are collector planes so they are already rarer than the regular planes.
 

G6 doesn't beat it in a climb, the g4 does above around 3k. 

Again, the time period difference is a stretch but TAW doesnt strictly follow it. But it would be larger then anything else so far so fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heaven forbid the allies ever having a better fighter.  If your going to ask for a Bodenplatte plane for axis you should also ask for one allied Bodenplatte plane.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

G6 doesn't beat it in a climb, the g4 does above around 3k. 

Again, the time period difference is a stretch but TAW doesnt strictly follow it. But it would be larger then anything else so far so fair enough.

From the specs page, 109G6 climbs at 20.1 m/s at sea level, La-5FN climbs at 20 m/s. Match.
At 3000 m, 109G6 climbs at 18.8 m/s, La-5FN climbes at 16.7 m/s. G6 is better.
At 6000m, 109G6 climbs at 15.2 m/s. La-5FN climbs at 12.5 m/s. G6 is better. 

I can see that the FN might outclimb the G6 in a band between sea level and 3000 m because of its engine being optimized for those altitudes, but that's gotta be a pretty narrow band.

Turn circle time between the two aircraft are almost identical. FN is faster at all altitudes but in many cases not by much. Max dive speed of FN is 720 km/h vs. G6 at 850 km/h. Both planes in the matchup have advantages and disadvantages. If this isn't a balanced matchup, I don't know what is.
 

15 minutes ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Heaven forbid the allies ever having a better fighter.  If your going to ask for a Bodenplatte plane for axis you should also ask for one allied Bodenplatte plane.

Spit-IX vs. G-14 is a good matchup, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

From the specs page, 109G6 climbs at 20.1 m/s at sea level, La-5FN climbs at 20 m/s. Match.
At 3000 m, 109G6 climbs at 18.8 m/s, La-5FN climbes at 16.7 m/s. G6 is better.
At 6000m, 109G6 climbs at 15.2 m/s. La-5FN climbs at 12.5 m/s. G6 is better. 

I can see that the FN might outclimb the G6 in a band between sea level and 3000 m because of its engine being optimized for those altitudes, but that's gotta be a pretty narrow band.

G6 climbs much better than that, because those specs are for combat power only... same applies for turn rates...

Edited by Jizzo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jizzo said:

G6 climbs much better than that, because those specs are for combat power only...

Huh, I always assumed that was at best climbing power for all the aircraft.

Share this post


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

Huh, I always assumed that was at best climbing power for all the aircraft.

Nope, there is still that "1 Min Millenium Falcon Hyper Space Mode"...:blush:

Edited by Jizzo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Heaven forbid the allies ever having a better fighter.  If your going to ask for a Bodenplatte plane for axis you should also ask for one allied Bodenplatte plane.

 

The very possibility that the opponent's team has any chance greater than 0 of taking them down is what pisses some people off the most.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet I fly both Russian and German

7 hours ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Heaven forbid the allies ever having a better fighter.  If your going to ask for a Bodenplatte plane for axis you should also ask for one allied Bodenplatte plane.

Thats fine with me, again I fly both sides 

7 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

From the specs page, 109G6 climbs at 20.1 m/s at sea level, La-5FN climbs at 20 m/s. Match.
At 3000 m, 109G6 climbs at 18.8 m/s, La-5FN climbes at 16.7 m/s. G6 is better.
At 6000m, 109G6 climbs at 15.2 m/s. La-5FN climbs at 12.5 m/s. G6 is better. 

I can see that the FN might outclimb the G6 in a band between sea level and 3000 m because of its engine being optimized for those altitudes, but that's gotta be a pretty narrow band.

Turn circle time between the two aircraft are almost identical. FN is faster at all altitudes but in many cases not by much. Max dive speed of FN is 720 km/h vs. G6 at 850 km/h. Both planes in the matchup have advantages and disadvantages. If this isn't a balanced matchup, I don't know what is.
 

Spit-IX vs. G-14 is a good matchup, for example.

Have you actually tested this or are you going off soley in game stats. Ill tell you from experience that the g4 out climbs the g6 and only barely does the g4 out climb the FN. Remember as good 109 pilot isnt going to put her at 45 degrees, you should only be putting the aircraft at a slight climb or else you risk getting shot at by a prop hanging la5

Also a bit of a citation, I fly the Russians more casually then the Germans but I do fly them nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got one! (..not in real life - yet)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

And yet I fly both Russian and German

Thats fine with me, again I fly both sides 

Have you actually tested this or are you going off soley in game stats. Ill tell you from experience that the g4 out climbs the g6 and only barely does the g4 out climb the FN. Remember as good 109 pilot isnt going to put her at 45 degrees, you should only be putting the aircraft at a slight climb or else you risk getting shot at by a prop hanging la5

Also a bit of a citation, I fly the Russians more casually then the Germans but I do fly them nonetheless

I don't have the G6. I'm surprised that you can't get the G6 to climb for you the way it does in the specs - the specs are from in-game testing and should be achievable, correct? In your experience what is the issue with getting the best performance out of it, is the automatic engine management not optimal?

Anyway, any 109 pilot I run into is a good 109 pilot these days as they all seem able to effortlessly zoom away from whatever I'm flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen this before.  Hard to see here but trucks faded into existence as I approached and faded out as I gained distance.  Didn't happen with the AA or the fuel trucks.  Just the generic trucks.  Clearly blue must surrender in the face of this superior technology.

 

 

Share this post


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

Haven't seen this before.  Hard to see here but trucks faded into existence as I approached and faded out as I gained distance.  Didn't happen with the AA or the fuel trucks.  Just the generic trucks.  Clearly blue must surrender in the face of this superior technology.

 

 

I’ve seen this with German vehicles before as well.  You see them up close then as you move away they disappear right away.  Makes strafing challenging as you can’t aim until the last second.  Haven’t seen this for a few maps this round (maybe map 1 or 2).

4 hours ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Also a bit of a citation, I fly the Russians more casually then the Germans but I do fly them nonetheless

So THATS where the aircraft losses are coming from, you cavalier Russian ally!  :)

 

J/K, even casual flying you handle most birds well so I’m sure you dish out more than you take/lose, lol.

Edited by AKA_Relent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trucks are static (non-linked entity) objects/blocks and you have to be really close and/or zoom in to see them or they disappear quickly.  This is an Il-2 bug and not a TAW bug beyond that static block objects are used in TAW.  I wonder if using the static blocks really keeps the mission running faster because it would be simple to convert them all into normal vehicles.  The other objects like AA and tanks are normal, linked entities and can be seen at normal distance.  SCG_Scheeman commented on this issue on March 21st in this thread.

 

Edited by SCG_Limbo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 7:14 AM, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

If you like to play without opponents, then of course you need to cancel the balance. Only punishment can change that.

 

JG51 "Mölders" is not a squadron formed in IL2. We started flying together in 1989 during the early days of Air Warrior. Back then the first servers we had were divided up into three sides A, B, and C, with all sides having access to the same equipment. Numbers were never really an issue because if your side was short there were usually enough on one of the other two sides to help offset the larger number of the third. 

 

Because all sides had access to the same equipment most people gravitated towards the British Spitfire MK IX or the American P-51D, not just because they are badass aircraft but also because if given the option most people won't use a perceived lesser piece of equipment.

 

In time we got a new Axis vs. Allies server with two sides, each given their respective equipment lists. Back then we saw the same kind of imbalance in numbers as we are seeing now with the TAW server. Very few people wanted to give up the aircraft they have learned how to play on to take up what was perceived as lesser pieces of equipment. As I said before this is not new to gaming. This problem we had with an imbalance in numbers is actually why we formed our squadron and is why we have in our charter still today that we are a Luftwaffe squadron only.

 

At first, it was rough going especially because we were so few but, in time not only did we draw other pilots to our squadron we also saw other like-minded squadrons form and draw pilots to them. Eventually, the numbers balanced themselves out with no penalties being imposed to do so. What it took was the initiative of the players themselves to organize and fix the issue. Organization and teamwork can do wonders to draw others to your side.

 

Over the years as the WWII combat flight simulation genera has matured we have spent time in quite a few games, Aces High, War Birds, WWIIOL, Cliffs of Dover and a few lesser-known games. All of them have had this same issue. No one of them was able to solve the issue by way of punishment.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 7:14 AM, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

In all team sports, there are equal number of players in teams.

That's what teams are called.

 

Sports from their conception are designed to eliminate as many external variables as can be as to highlight an individual or group of individuals athleticism, skill, and mental capacity over that of their opponents. 

 

War or the armaments race if you like, seek to take the attributes of the individual out of the equation and create a piece of equipment that regardless of athleticism, skill or mental capacity will give that individual an advantage over his opponent.

 

From the IL2 web site - "The new generation of IL-2 Sturmovik titles is developed by 1CGS and is a combat flight simulator of the World War II era and carries on the tradition created by the original IL-2 Sturmovik first released in 2001. Sturmovik recreates the aircraft, their use in the war and the environment they flew in."

 

IL2 is not a sport it's a war simulation and removing any part of that simulation from the game, in my opinion, is wrong. 

 

On 9/4/2019 at 7:14 AM, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

A team in a strong minority has no chance of resisting.

Winning the campaign is important to me. But when there are ten times as many blues, my flights are useless.

 

I'm sure some pilots felt the same way in the RAF during the Battle of Britain or, as part of the Cactus Air Force or, part of the RAF detachment on Malta. The Luftwaffe probably had quite a few during 1944 as did the Russian during 1941. 

 

On 9/4/2019 at 7:14 AM, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

You can rejoice in your victory. But will it be worthy? How could you defeat an equal enemy? Could that be a cause for pride?)

 

Teams compete in skill, not numbers

 

I'm too am looking for a solution. Trust me I know how hard it can be and if the numbers were reversed I would be standing just a stong on this issue of no punishment as a solution as I am while being part of the side with the numbers. I'm not a fan of the TAW server because my side win. I'm a fan of the TAW server because of the persistent campaign if offers and the quality of the opposition that draws to it. Removing some or any of the war simulation from the game to achieve the goal of making it fair is wrong in my opinion. War is not fair and there has to be a way we can help balance the numbers without removing part of the simulation.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 8:06 AM, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Have you ever played a team sport? 

 

Yes, back in my high school days I played (American) football, baseball, wrestled and ran track but that was a few years ago.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 8:06 AM, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

This comically arrogant attitude always evaporates when the person talking has to deal with the reality of flying 3-1, forever, for as long as they participate in the sim.  Regardless, why can't your JG51 fly VVS if you all want to fly together so badly?

 

Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them arrogant. You act as if you as an Allied pilot are the only ones that have faced this issue. I assure you that you are not.

I think you will find the answer to why JG51 does not fly Allied in my first reply.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

 

JG51 "Mölders" is not a squadron formed in IL2. We started flying together in 1989 during the early days of Air Warrior. Back then the first servers we had were divided up into three sides A, B, and C, with all sides having access to the same equipment. Numbers were never really an issue because if your side was short there were usually enough on one of the other two sides to help offset the larger number of the third. 

 

Because all sides had access to the same equipment most people gravitated towards the British Spitfire MK IX or the American P-51D, not just because they are badass aircraft but also because if given the option most people won't use a perceived lesser piece of equipment.

 

In time we got a new Axis vs. Allies server with two sides, each given their respective equipment lists. Back then we saw the same kind of imbalance in numbers as we are seeing now with the TAW server. Very few people wanted to give up the aircraft they have learned how to play on to take up what was perceived as lesser pieces of equipment. As I said before this is not new to gaming. This problem we had with an imbalance in numbers is actually why we formed our squadron and is why we have in our charter still today that we are a Luftwaffe squadron only.

 

At first, it was rough going especially because we were so few but, in time not only did we draw other pilots to our squadron we also saw other like-minded squadrons form and draw pilots to them. Eventually, the numbers balanced themselves out with no penalties being imposed to do so. What it took was the initiative of the players themselves to organize and fix the issue. Organization and teamwork can do wonders to draw others to your side.

 

Over the years as the WWII combat flight simulation genera has matured we have spent time in quite a few games, Aces High, War Birds, WWIIOL, Cliffs of Dover and a few lesser-known games. All of them have had this same issue. No one of them was able to solve the issue by way of punishment.

 

 

Sports from their conception are designed to eliminate as many external variables as can be as to highlight an individual or group of individuals athleticism, skill, and mental capacity over that of their opponents. 

 

War or the armaments race if you like, seek to take the attributes of the individual out of the equation and create a piece of equipment that regardless of athleticism, skill or mental capacity will give that individual an advantage over his opponent.

 

From the IL2 web site - "The new generation of IL-2 Sturmovik titles is developed by 1CGS and is a combat flight simulator of the World War II era and carries on the tradition created by the original IL-2 Sturmovik first released in 2001. Sturmovik recreates the aircraft, their use in the war and the environment they flew in."

 

IL2 is not a sport it's a war simulation and removing any part of that simulation from the game, in my opinion, is wrong. 

 

 

I'm sure some pilots felt the same way in the RAF during the Battle of Britain or, as part of the Cactus Air Force or, part of the RAF detachment on Malta. The Luftwaffe probably had quite a few during 1944 as did the Russian during 1941. 

 

 

I'm too am looking for a solution. Trust me I know how hard it can be and if the numbers were reversed I would be standing just a stong on this issue of no punishment as a solution as I am while being part of the side with the numbers. I'm not a fan of the TAW server because my side win. I'm a fan of the TAW server because of the persistent campaign if offers and the quality of the opposition that draws to it. Removing some or any of the war simulation from the game to achieve the goal of making it fair is wrong in my opinion. War is not fair and there has to be a way we can help balance the numbers without removing part of the simulation.

 

 

Yes, back in my high school days I played (American) football, baseball, wrestled and ran track but that was a few years ago.

 

 

Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them arrogant. You act as if you as an Allied pilot are the only ones that have faced this issue. I assure you that you are not.

I think you will find the answer to why JG51 does not fly Allied in my first reply.

 

 

No one is being punished. Measures are taken to incentivize more balancing of the teams. The server devs are not shaking their finger at people and saying "Bad JG51! bad pilots! Go to your room!" They are putting mechanics on their server to try and make the game more fun for as many people as possible, to increase server numbers on the outnumbered side. This is a better challenge for the Luftwaffe and a morale boost for the VVS.

Comparing the server to a 'real war' is not all that relevant because unlike in a real war, if something is not fun people just won't play. They have a choice.

Last night the ratios I flew fluctuated between 2 to 1 and 5 to 1. I died twice in the space of 5 sorties. (Don't ask about the first sortie, a Luftwaffe radio tower popped up out of nowhere at the end of the runway and tore a wing off my A20 D:). The positive incentive for me to fly in that scenario is that when I die, I only lose a fraction of my life instead of the whole thing. So instead of running through two thirds of my available lives for the entire map, I only ran through a small portion of my life. If this wasn't in place I would have stopped after my first two sorties to preserve my life, as it was I flew another two and became cannon fodder for a couple of FW-190s. Everyone wins!

What you see as a 'punishment' is really an incentive for people to fly on the outnumbered side. With airfield closures, and maximum caps to player numbers, there's a limit to how bad things can get. I can look at it and go "Yeah, sure I'm outnumbered 4 to 1, but at least it can't get any worse!" It would never be 63 to 1. 

There's a limit to how much positive incentive you can put to the outnumbered side because at a certain point it doesn't matter. There's no incentive you can give that will make someone fly at 20 to 1 odds unless they were already disposed to do so. Increasing score, reward planes, none of it matters if it means you won't have fun on the server, which is the point.

There will always be a few masochists like me flying around out there regardless of numbers, but without some controls in place you guys are going to have to get in an orderly line to shoot me down.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

 

I think you will find the answer to why JG51 does not fly Allied in my first reply.

 

 

That's fine, but 1989 was a long, long time ago and now the Luftwaffe is the permanently stacked team.  You are not obligated to stop being part of the greater problem(even though it would fix what you guys complain about, being able to fly together any time) but that does not mean that steps don't need to be taken to fix it permanently, as much as is possible.  If you guys want to refuse to adapt yourselves, fine, wait in line.

 

 

1 hour ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

IL2 is not a sport it's a war simulation and removing any part of that simulation from the game, in my opinion, is wrong. 

 

 

I'm sure some pilots felt the same way in the RAF during the Battle of Britain or, as part of the Cactus Air Force or, part of the RAF detachment on Malta. The Luftwaffe probably had quite a few during 1944 as did the Russian during 1941. 

 

 

I'm too am looking for a solution. Trust me I know how hard it can be and if the numbers were reversed I would be standing just a stong on this issue of no punishment as a solution as I am while being part of the side with the numbers. I'm not a fan of the TAW server because my side win. I'm a fan of the TAW server because of the persistent campaign if offers and the quality of the opposition that draws to it. Removing some or any of the war simulation from the game to achieve the goal of making it fair is wrong in my opinion. War is not fair and there has to be a way we can help balance the numbers without removing part of the simulation.

 

 

Competitive online IL-2 like TAW is not even remotely a simulation of war conditions, and is much more closely related to a team sport, requiring some semblance of balance if you want to have anyone to actually fly against.  Which is especially comical since if we want to simulate war conditions you should have no fuel and a fraction of the team numbers of the VVS.  Or do you not want to simulate that?

 

 

1 hour ago, JG51_Moostafa said:

 

Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them arrogant. You act as if you as an Allied pilot are the only ones that have faced this issue. I assure you that you are not.

 

 

The VVS side is virtually always the one that is heavily outnumbered once the population is in the double digits for both teams, and always has been.  Yes, the allied side is the only team that has had to deal with this for the entire lifespan of the new IL-2 series.  Nobody can force you to stop being part of the problem, but to refuse to even acknowledge that things like the team balance system are needed to keep the server healthy, alive and enjoyable for more people is 100% pure arrogance.  Fly VVS for a year or two with no balance mechanic and then we can talk about that.

Edited by 7.GShAP/Silas
  • Upvote 3

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...