Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

You were not vulched, you got shot down because you got lost in your transport A-20 because someone killed the radio bacon. 

I dont use bacon. I waited far from airfield and waiting because airfield was under attack. And my teammate was vulched in this same time. One after takeoff and second after landing on cgarleroi airfield.

But u are hero too. You flying near airfield and kill returning planes. Transpot, damaged, everythink with gear and flaps near airfield. Wow. Pilot trash......

Edited by CSW_606_Tempik
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =LG=Coldman said:

From your stats looks like you didn't hit end mission but leave server which could end in pilot exit. 

 

Ahh!!! See I had a feeling it was user error! :dash:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=25076&name=Cpt_Siddy

 

mad skillz :biggrin:

 

Squads that insist on cool, cinematic takeoffs, are just begging to get massacred on the runway....:dance:

 

Next time i think ill try to use R4M rockets while listening to R4M Ranch...

 

What a load of rubbish! So your saying if they had taken off individually you wouldn't have shot them down one by one?! 

Edited by Wanganui_Wildcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the jet being used primarily to vulch airfields, especially when the blues outnumber the reds by a large margin. I don’t see them supporting or defending or attacking much. This results in missions like this one: https://taw.stg2.de/pilots_mission.php?mission_id=150. The jets go to airfields that don’t have “Attack!” under them on the map and hang out for an hour or so, other blues take advantage of the numerical superiority to get some ground work done. Blue targets stay unguarded because it would be boring to wait for the rare red who makes it to the front.

 

So overall I think everyone is happy: the trinket collectors are happy to pad their stats and stay safe in their jets, other blues fly mostly unmolested and get to practice ground attack, while the reds are happy that a 16:4 numerical disadvantage with jets on the blue side didn’t result in more damage to their situation on the map.

 

If however for some reason the admins want to change this happy balance, then the best suggestion I read above was limiting the amount of fuel the jets can take. This would limit their loiter time over rear airfields and force them to participate over the front.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I assume your are being sarcastic. The reds are certainly not happy. All the guys I play with have quit taw for now because we can't even leave our airfields without being smashed by a 262. The airfield defences do nothing to stop them, had one the other night just flying low over top waiting for us to get airborne while the flak fired all around them. I'm all for historical accuracy but this is not accurate or balanced. The 262 has ruined this last map, it only takes a causal glance at the stats to see that people flying it are just farming kills, a lot of them were certainly not doing that when flying props. Red has no real match up to the 262, they only way it was not such a game changer in real life is the fact that the allies always had superior numbers. In my timezone this is certainly not the case. Last 3 nights has been 15 to 20 axis vs 3 to 5 allies. All six 262's have been up flying, and just hanging around our airfields. 

Edited by Wanganui_Wildcat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.5 out of TOP 5 best fighter streaks are done with Me-262. Disgusting. And very unrealistic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Personally i think the P-51 should get 150 oct fuel even when they were limited to england. It's not like they weren't involved in combat over western europe and we don't have realistic squadron airfields anyway. 

 

This point needs to be expanded on a bit.  People love to post the "Mustangs never used 150 Octane based on the continent" statement - and it is a true statement.  But it gives a very false impression that Mustangs with 150 octane weren't involved in these battles because they were based in England.

 

To illustrate this, I spent a little time digging through references looking at allied victory claims for the Market-Garden battle (Sept 17-25th) and the Battle of the Bulge (Dec 16th - Jan 14).  I've included just claims made over our map area - the exception to this is the US 9th AF.  I just don't have detailed enough info for them, just raw numbers with dates and units but no locations.   I've included all claims for the 9th, but this likely overstates their involvement, as many 9th AF fighters were deployed well south of our map area - still I don't think this impacts my totals by too much.

 

For the Market-Garden battle (Sept 17-25th 1944), RAF Spitfire Mk. IXs claimed 23, and RAF Mustangs 9.  9th AF P-47s claimed 8 and P-38's 3.  8th AF P-51s and P-47s (all operating out of England and using 150 octane fuel) claimed 79 and 34 respectively!  As you can see, the 8th AF (flying out of England using 150 octane fuel) was the main Allied force involved over this battle!

 

For the Battle of the Bulge (Dec 16th 1944 through Jan 14th 1945, which was the date that most of the Jagdwaffe was ordered to the east front and air combat dropped off significantly) the totals are:

 

RAF Spit IX: 131

RAF Spit XIV: 3

RAF Typhoon: 14

RAF Tempest: 53

RAF Mustang: 9

 

9th AF P-47: 258

9th AF P-38: 56

9th AF P-51: 17 (these were scored by Tac Recon squadrons of the 9th AF)

 

8th AF P-51 based on the continent (100 octane fuel): 80

8th AF P-47 based in England (150 octane fuel): 81

8th AF P-51 based in England (150 octane fuel): 319 !!!

 

As you can see from the numbers, P-51's using 150 octane fuel were used HEAVILY in combat in western Europe.

 

If people want them removed for balance, that's a fair argument to have.  But from a historical perspective they were the most important Allied air superiority fighter.

 

 

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is this a known bug? 
Kill doesnt count on my profile if i land before he bails out

I loaded in an a-20 to see if it would record the kill but didnt happen

kill.JPG

kill1.JPG

Edited by -332FG-Cii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CSW_606_Tempik said:

I am from Czech Republic / middle Europe. Winter average temperatures  is cca -5°C to +5°C. -20°C is only on mountain, or very cold night. Western Europe is more warm then mid becoause sea.
We flying from rear Airfield!!!!!! This airfields is target too!!!!!!!!!

I understand in your case you were doing a transport mission but for instance, reds could start taking off from Gent or Chievres, even from Charleroi to avoid 262s vulching. But it seems that's too much brainwork for them to think that.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

blues take advantage of the numerical superiority to get some ground work done. Blue targets stay unguarded because it would be boring to wait for the rare red who makes it to the front. [...] So overall I think everyone is happy: the trinket collectors are happy to pad their stats and stay safe in their jets, other blues fly mostly unmolested and get to practice ground attack, while the reds are happy that a 16:4 numerical disadvantage with jets on the blue side didn’t result in more damage to their situation on the map.

 

The history of TAW over the last 1 1/2 years. Guess why VVS side is less and less populated every edition...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

I understand in your case you were doing a transport mission but for instance, reds could start taking off from Gent or Chievres, even from Charleroi to avoid 262s vulching. But it seems that's too much brainwork for them to think that.

 

Why are you such a douchebag?  Make an allied account and just see what it's like from the other side.

 

Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

The history of TAW over the last 1 1/2 years. Guess why VVS side is less and less populated every edition...

 

Yeah, huge mystery.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

Why are you such a douchebag?  Make an allied account and just see what it's like from the other side.

 

 

Yeah, huge mystery.

Last TAW I've been jumped by yaks on Anapa when the front was on Timashevskaya, that was part of the game and I didn't complain. Last TAW reds did huge raids on airfields (killing even a teammate) and I also didn't complain, that's part of the game. Instead of respawing in the attacked airfield I respawned in the rear ones. Not that hard to do....

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Allies Pe-2, everyone will be happy again. 

 

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Give Allies Pe-2, everyone will be happy again. 

 

 

True 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for forbid flying 262 over enemy teritory (behind front line). Just like in reality, they do it very rarely, because they were scared of ditching in enemy teritory and alies would get the technology. Very easy to implement this rule:

 

1) 262 is forbidden to fly behind front line

2) If 262 break a rule and somebody from allies report it, pilot get BAN for rest of the current TAW. Reporting is easy, there is a position, where airplane was shot down in the LOG.

 

That way, it will bring much more reality in using 262, which was used primarily as defence aircraft and definitely not to flying around enemy airfield and vulching again and again...

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Give Allies Pe-2, everyone will be happy again. 

 

 


The Pe-2 is like a bee: nasty stinger but harmless if you leave it alone.

 

The jet is like a vulture: flying untouchable until it decides to come down to the ground and peck your eyes out when you’re most vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible at all to change the number of 262's available depending on how many players are on the other team? I know this may not change much during peak times but in off peak times their can be more 262's then there are allied players on the server.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 1:12 PM, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

I would say that our G-6 late is the one with MW-50, so no point to add a AS version. Why no G-14 in the first map (I'm not sure if it entered in service around Normandy by this timeframe)? Not having 262s at least on map #3 seems a big trade off for balance, in my opinion there should be 2 262s available in map #3 and 4 in map #4.

 

I'm not sure how the devs will approach the Bf-109 G6 "late" so you are probably right. In that case, we can just remove that version from the table. Regarding the G-14 there is some evidence of units (how many? and which ones?) using this airframe in July 44 but major deployment of the G-14 was probably taking place around late August-September that is why I placed in Map #2. Finally, regarding the 262 ... oh well ... lol ... There is a lot to talk about regarding that one ... I dont oppose having in TAW but I believe greater restriction should be enforced and introducing it as early as map 3 would completely break the game IMHO.

 

On 3/20/2020 at 6:42 PM, Falkenstein said:

 

On Map #1 and #2, you have the P-47 as a +1, without ordnance restrictions.  The P-47 became the USAAF's primary fighter-bomber, would seem appropriate for it to be +1 on all maps, not just 1 & 2.

 

The A-20Gs & A-20Hs (with the glass-nosed A-20J & A-20K as lead ships) were operated in smaller numbers in the 9th Air Force, three bombardment groups, and they operated primarily at medium level, due to "prohibitive losses" from heavy German ground fire at low level.  I don't view them as a +1 fighter-bomber option, instead of the +1 P-47 fighter-bomber option, on Maps 3 & 4.

 

Thank you for your suggestions and feedback request.  😎

 

I agree. You have a good point there but I think TAW developers try to balance in terms of comparable Aircraft .... But indeed, the P47 would be a more accurate alternative.

 

On 3/20/2020 at 7:36 PM, Falkenstein said:

 

I'd recommend the Ju 52/Зm added as a transport option, especially since sixty-seven Ju 52/Зms dropped 800 Fallschirmjäger behind the U.S. Army lines during the Ardennes counter-offensive.  While after Ardennes, the number of air-supply sorties was more limited, but the Ju 52/Зm was still active.  

 

I've added the Ju-52 now. Thank you for your suggestions. I have not been able to change everything yet since I was mostly working on lay out but I appreciate your suggestions and discussion. I'll give the final layout to the TAW devs and hopefully we can all reach an agreement to the plane set before the start of a new TAW in the Western front ...

 

Lgfetye.jpg

 

Again, please note that this table will probably need lots of fixing and balancing and I have not really worked on that yet. There are also many additional things to consider like the inclusion of P51 150ct (will we simulate the 8th, 9th or both Air forces), inclusion of Mustangs and Thunderbolts for the RAF (in lower numbers), when or if we should include the 262, when to include the DC engine for the K4, etc.

 

I'm hoping to have a civil discussion with you all, especially those that know a lot about each air force and airframes. I think we can reach a middle ground between balance and history that creates a more enjoyable environment. So, please, continue the discussion and proposals. Lets all do this together!

 

Cheers

7 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

This point needs to be expanded on a bit.  People love to post the "Mustangs never used 150 Octane based on the continent" statement - and it is a true statement.  But it gives a very false impression that Mustangs with 150 octane weren't involved in these battles because they were based in England.

 

To illustrate this, I spent a little time digging through references looking at allied victory claims for the Market-Garden battle (Sept 17-25th) and the Battle of the Bulge (Dec 16th - Jan 14).  I've included just claims made over our map area - the exception to this is the US 9th AF.  I just don't have detailed enough info for them, just raw numbers with dates and units but no locations.   I've included all claims for the 9th, but this likely overstates their involvement, as many 9th AF fighters were deployed well south of our map area - still I don't think this impacts my totals by too much.

 

For the Market-Garden battle (Sept 17-25th 1944), RAF Spitfire Mk. IXs claimed 23, and RAF Mustangs 9.  9th AF P-47s claimed 8 and P-38's 3.  8th AF P-51s and P-47s (all operating out of England and using 150 octane fuel) claimed 79 and 34 respectively!  As you can see, the 8th AF (flying out of England using 150 octane fuel) was the main Allied force involved over this battle!

 

For the Battle of the Bulge (Dec 16th 1944 through Jan 14th 1945, which was the date that most of the Jagdwaffe was ordered to the east front and air combat dropped off significantly) the totals are:

 

RAF Spit IX: 131

RAF Spit XIV: 3

RAF Typhoon: 14

RAF Tempest: 53

RAF Mustang: 9

 

9th AF P-47: 258

9th AF P-38: 56

9th AF P-51: 17 (these were scored by Tac Recon squadrons of the 9th AF)

 

8th AF P-51 based on the continent (100 octane fuel): 80

8th AF P-47 based in England (150 octane fuel): 81

8th AF P-51 based in England (150 octane fuel): 319 !!!

 

As you can see from the numbers, P-51's using 150 octane fuel were used HEAVILY in combat in western Europe.

 

If people want them removed for balance, that's a fair argument to have.  But from a historical perspective they were the most important Allied air superiority fighter.

 

 

 

That is a good point. Thank you for bringing it up! It sure adds a nice perspective into the inclusion of the 150oct Mustang!

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Would it be possible at all to change the number of 262's available depending on how many players are on the other team? I know this may not change much during peak times but in off peak times their can be more 262's then there are allied players on the server.


Glad to see others agree... this is along the same lines as I mentioned a few days ago:  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

... I think TAW developers try to balance in terms of comparable Aircraft ...

 

  I had the same question, I had looked at earlier Eastern Front plane sets, and it wasn't clear to me how concerned they were about balancing the number of ground attack options each side had.  One thing that struck me, however, was that it appeared they had at least one +1 option on each map for a ground attack option, and did not worry about level bombers getting a +1.

 

  The Ju 87, and a version of the IL-2, were always represented with a +1 on a map, with a Bf 110 also getting mixed in as an additional +1 on the Axis side on most maps (6 out of 8).  This led me to consider that the P-47 should likely be equivalently represented, as well, for the USAAF.  With the Ju 88 A4 as a +1 option on all maps, do you think that covers the Axis for their attacker +1 option?  (FWIW, for me, personally, I prefer the P-38 to the P-47, but historically with the USAAF 9th Air Force, it should be the P-47 that is the fighter-bomber +1 option.)

 

Thank your for the discussion.

 

 

planeset_taw12.jpg

taw_planeset_Sept2019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  In the spirit of contributing to the fighter-bomber discussion for the RAF side of the house, it's my limited understanding that, for the RAF Second Tactical Air Force, "the Typhoon became the backbone of 2nd TAF'S ground attack force, specializing in particular in carrying the 3-inch rocket."

 

 

RAF-Second-Tactical-Air-For.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the "Top 5 Tanks Killers Squads" score calculated exactly on the leaderboards?  Obviously, it's not based solely on total tank kill count.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CSW_606_Tempik said:

Sorry Guys. This is unplayable for Allies. I left this Circus. Try balanced next time. Good Luck.

 

I saw that your last death was from Fw 190 A-8, it's mean this ariplane should be off too? Previous one was from Ju 88 A-4, then from Me 262 A and Bf 109 K-4. I know that everyone are complain about Me 262, but i'm wondering what is your problem?

Edited by =L/R=todeskvlt
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, CSW_606_Tempik said:

5Allies vs 16Axis  and locked Airfield. 

 

Sounds legit

 

Edited by =L/R=todeskvlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm learning western planes in a hard way, but I've got a blast flying this TAW anyway. Flying with a thought in mind that "enemies" got a Me-262, patroling own airfields, "enemies" airfields trying to catch a jet it's amazing. It's so refreshing and exciting. Schwable must stay. With some restrictions of course, like players numbers in Allied team and no possibility to gain Me-262 by lame-spamming transport missions.

 

PS. Message to those crying on the forum - http://cdn.frustra.org/sounds/sound_tf2/vo/taunts/heavy_taunts10.mp3?id=602

Edited by =LG=Mad_Mikhael
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 10:47 AM, Pict said:

 

Good on you Ogg :good:...

 

..."shot at VVS" is a recurrent theme in TAW, at least from my experience :biggrin:

 

On 3/5/2020 at 3:01 PM, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Be sure to try Pе-2. I think you'll like it

I have decided not to be one of the "cool kids" that hopped over to the VVS for a "Cool rides" tour.  Therefore I will not be flying during this campaign as either Allied or Axis.  I'll wait until the next setting starts from scratch.  I hope you folks understand that I'm just not a new toys person nor am I a bounce it where I feel comfortable person.  I will however be in the next scenario that starts from Scratch.  I like flying that little I16.

>S<

Ogg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people complaining about m262 are crying?

 

good aproach to community opinion mate. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =LG=Mad_Mikhael said:

I'm learning western planes in a hard way, but I've got a blast flying this TAW anyway. Flying with a thought in mind that "enemies" got a Me-262, patroling own airfields, "enemies" airfields trying to catch a jet it's amazing. It's so refreshing and exciting. Schwable must stay. With some restrictions of course, like players numbers in Allied team and no possibility to gain Me-262 by lame-spamming transport missions.

 

PS. Message to those crying on the forum - http://cdn.frustra.org/sounds/sound_tf2/vo/taunts/heavy_taunts10.mp3?id=602

 

Maybe use something like Combat Box in their server ... Like limiting the numbers during a mission based on the number of opposing players in the Allied side:

- 0-15 Allied players then unlock 1 Me-262;

- 16-30 Allied players then unlock 2 Me-262;

- > 30 Allied players then unlock 3 (maybe 4?) Me-262.

 

OR

 

Perhaps make these numbers depend on Axis-to-Allied ratio once a minimum amount of players is in the server like 30 or something like that.

 

S!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I still believe that number of "Schwalbe" isnt the biggest problem (even single 262 over allied airfield on fully populated server can do a disaster while being relatively safe), problem is a way, how people fly it, in very unrealistic way. Today, i was chased in P-51 by two Schwalbe on the way home from enemy target, more than 70km, they boom and zoom me just above the ground again and again, till well, they hit me once by the 30mm, after 6 minutes of breaking their attacks... In reality, they will NEVER do that... They will NEVER perform 10 or more consequencial attack on single plane just above the ground level, NEVER! Reason are obvious, why in the game, they can do it while in reality they could not. Also they will NEVER camp around airfield and every 3 minutes try to low pass above runway try to vulch a plane, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, but in game they can.

 

So just think about my proposal to forbid flying Me-262 behind front line, just think about it, how it will impact way how Schwalbes are flown... Think about it and you maybe conclude, that it will be much closer to reality than now...

 

 

Edited by CSW_Hot_Dog
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

So just think about my proposal to forbid flying Me-262 behind front line, just think about it, how it will impact way how Schwalbes are flown... Think about it and you maybe conclude, that it will be much closer to reality than now...


That might be hard to implement and enforce. Limiting their fuel while still forcing them to take off and land from the rear would be a better way to limit their time behind the front line.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I still believe that number of "Schwalbe" isnt the biggest problem (even single 262 over allied airfield on fully populated server can do a disaster while being relatively safe), problem is a way, how people fly it, in very unrealistic way. Today, i was chased in P-51 by two Schwalbe on the way home from enemy target, more than 70km, they boom and zoom me just above the ground again and again, till well, they hit me once by the 30mm, after 6 minutes of breaking their attacks... In reality, they will NEVER do that... They will NEVER perform 10 or more consequencial attack on single plane just above the ground level, NEVER! Reason are obvious, why in the game, they can do it while in reality they could not. Also they will NEVER camp around airfield and every 3 minutes try to low pass above runway try to vulch a plane, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, but in game they can.

 

So just think about my proposal to forbid flying Me-262 behind front line, just think about it, how it will impact way how Schwalbes are flown... Think about it and you maybe conclude, that it will be much closer to reality than now...

 

 

 

So you are saying that 2 top of the line airplanes wasted 6 minutes on a one lonely plane? I see that as a victory for Allies. 

 

You are not a hero of this server, you are just a single man, and even if your opponents were 190 D's or 109K's, the result would be same. Only difference is that you would die faster. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well TAW is almost ending and realism about late war scenario was struggling... Since allied usually attack almost any German airfield at the end of war especially looking for jet airplanes on the ground, I suggest any allied player to bomb and attack 262 spawn airfield on map. I'll do this at the end of this campaign and I think this could be a good rule change in terms of disposable jets on Luftwaffe players... 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe use something like Combat Box in their server ... Like limiting the numbers during a mission based on the number of opposing players in the Allied side:

- 0-15 Allied players then unlock 1 Me-262;

- 16-30 Allied players then unlock 2 Me-262;

- > 30 Allied players then unlock 3 (maybe 4?) Me-262.

OR

Perhaps make these numbers depend on Axis-to-Allied ratio once a minimum amount of players is in the server like 30 or something like that.

1 vulching 262 - close 1 allied field.

2 vulching 262 - close 2 allied field

...

All allied field closed by vulching ME 262.

Profit. End.

 

Imho - axis must no have 262 in planeset on taw.

Edited by =19GvFAB=Vlad-Executor
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Hotdog,

 

You attacked the target several times, giving us time and space to observe. We decided to go in. And after we noticed nothing else around us (<Keypoint of our decision making process) we stayed until we could win the fight. It was very fun to fight you in our opinion, so we did not get your offensive message afterwards.

 

I felt challenged and well fought by this encounter due to the fact that it was intense but also a pure tactical decision to go on with the fight. One other Allied fighter would have changed everything in that moment and that is what I like on IL2.

 

Besides:

I really do not understand why, still beeing in a GAME, this offends people so much. If we have the Jet fighter, (planned by Luftwaffe to be the new standard fighter, not only beeing high altitude B17 arch enemy, when it was developed) one should consider this  a tactical challenge and this campaign a test how to deal with it in the future.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Kanaille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, this is mainly a concern for admins, just wanted to have this documented.

 

I just flew a sortie where the precise moment I dove on an A-20 and fired a burst, my game crashed to desktop. I understand losing my plane and the kill not counting, but -300 experience and a 20 hour ban?!

 

This seems like outrageously unfair punishment for something that was totally beyond my control. 

 

I have been really enjoying this TAW campaign, but being punished this way for a technical error on the games part is a hard punch in the sensitive area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

After DISCo you lost life like after DEATH or CAPTURE. It was your third lost life during second map. You have penalty. -300 points is normal after DISCO. Dura lex, sed lex.

Edited by =L/R=Rafcio
No reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JG4_DonKanaille said:

Dear Hotdog,

 

You attacked the target several times, giving us time and space to observe. We decided to go in. And after we noticed nothing else around us (<Keypoint of our decision making process) we stayed until we could win the fight. It was very fun to fight you in our opinion, so we did not get your offensive message afterwards.

 

I felt challenged and well fought by this encounter due to the fact that it was intense but also a pure tactical decision to go on with the fight. One other Allied fighter would have changed everything in that moment and that is what I like on IL2.

 

Besides:

I really do not understand why, still beeing in a GAME, this offends people so much. If we have the Jet fighter, (planned by Luftwaffe to be the new standard fighter, not only beeing high altitude B17 arch enemy, when it was developed) one should consider this  a tactical challenge and this campaign a test how to deal with it in the future.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Kanaille

DonKanaille, im not offensive agains you and your squad mate (excluding chat massage after being shot down offcourse, which was kind of relieve myself from anger), I just sketch out my opinion on the matter with 262, and believe me, there is a lot of reds in this campaign pissed of by being vulched and strafed by untachable Schwalbe again and again, which will lead finally to have no oponents for your Schwalbe and that will be sad Game Over. Just look how this TAW is no populated, there is no full server of players just like TAWs before, no hours of que, which you must wait to be able to fly. Thats very weird to me, i expected opposite on western edition of TAW. IRL your Schwalbes would been outnumbered in ratio of 1:10 or 1:20 or so, thats why you never could do that IRL, but thats not situation on TAW, so i just say my opinion and possible solution (which is even more +- historically correct), which i know, most likely never be implemented...

Edited by CSW_Hot_Dog
  • 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...