Tactical Air War

[E69_Soec]

1 hour ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

What he means is that you could abuse this and shoot at your own tanks to get the draw. When a team runs out of planes it loses. If both team lose all planes at the same time its a draw. But when one team loses all its tanks the map is still able to be won, so why if both team runs out of tanks it's a draw?

This allows for grey areas and weird strategies, either blue ignoring red tanks as much as possible, or red shooting at their own.

 

Exactly.

 

57 minutes ago, Prancingkiller said:

the only way to fix that IMO is to make tanks a win conditions

Maybe. Also keep the win conditions as they are now. Planes and pilots. In this last map I'd have liked to see huge airfield raids until one team depleted the planes/pilots

[Chivas_Regal]

1 hour ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

What he means is that you could abuse this and shoot at your own tanks to get the draw. When a team runs out of planes it loses. If both team lose all planes at the same time its a draw. But when one team loses all its tanks the map is still able to be won, so why if both team runs out of tanks it's a draw?

This allows for grey areas and weird strategies, either blue ignoring red tanks as much as possible, or red shooting at their own.

 

I just find it really odd how you can lose all your tanks and win but if the enemies does too you can't .

 

 

These conditions are no more strange than any other. On map # 3, the blue ones could, for example, concentrate on destroying the red tanks when they lost all their own and the front rolled to the West. Or you could focus on destroying enemy aircraft.

TAW is just interesting in that it is necessary not just to fly stupidly, but it makes sense to apply different strategies based on the situation on the map and the availability of resources. It's like chess.

Personally, it was obvious to me a few days ago how this could all end. Conditions with tanks are known to all, the figures are on the site. These are just rules of the game that each team uses to their advantage.

 

1 hour ago, Prancingkiller said:

the only way to fix that IMO is to make tanks a win conditions

Previously, the exhaustion of the tank limit was a condition of victory, and red very often won the maps, because the blue could not quickly destroy the tanks. The fact that they entered a draw with the loss of tanks is more in favor of the blue side.

[AKA_Relent]

Actually, regarding tank and truck supply on each side, what I’d like to see is the following:

 

- Continue with the resupply depots spawning very infrequently which build up plane/tank/truck/etc maximum numbers.

 

- Introduce “re-supply” tank and truck columns in the backfield (I.e. away from the front line) once every 5-10 missions, which would represent the actual movement of vehicles and tanks from the (infrequent) supply depot areas to the staging areas (e.g. airfields not quite at the front line).

 

IMO this would better represent vehicle and tank movement from the rear areas to staging areas, before they are then used for actually attacking enemy locations from front line airfields.  If they make it, the maximum tank and vehicle numbers go up, but at a much smaller amount than the depots of course.

 

Also, this would have the effect of spreading the “actionable” areas, with more targets of opportunity.

 

Since TAW uses static units, it shouldn’t be a huge cpu drain to add another column or two once every few missions.

 

One more thought is that these could also be semi-hidden, with a white ellipse showing that somewhere a column existed.

Edited April 29, 2020 by AKA_Relent

[72AG_SerWolf]

Few videoclips from ours flight on TAW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WokeUpDead]

7 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

I've been looking at the game files recently to understand this and my guess is the difference is there, but because it's so minor it's hard to notice. You would probably need to run 15 of the exact same tests to notice the difference.

The difference is far more noticeable with heavy bombs like the SC1000 or SC2500. Because the Soviets don't have anything heavier than the FAB500s, there was not much of a difference to notice in the small to medium bombs.

 

From v4.004 to v4.005...

SC250/FAB250 radius increased from 56 to 75.4
Shrapnel Quanitity increased from 4800 to16432
 

SC500/FAB500 radius dropped from 100 to 91.6
Shrpanel quantity increased from 10400 to 22952

 

SC1000 radius dropped from 160 to 120.2
Shrapnel quantity increased from 18800 to 23732

 

Interesting. Now the total blast area of 4 x 250 bombs is bigger than that of 2 x 500 bombs; in v4.004 it was the reverse. Do you have data for 100kg bombs?

[SCG_Wulfe]

5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

How does the damage in game compare to this? Looks like the distances are in feet:

 

 

 

It's important to remember that this is related to damage against structures. Structures are far more susceptible to bomb blasts than vehicles, especially armored vehicles. 

[=LG/F=Kathon]

2 hours ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

How there could be 976 lost units of 975? Or 2621 of 2240 ?

Example: 

It was 970/975 so tank convoy is generated. During that mission 6 tanks were destroyed so now it's 976/975.

 

Ideally if tank convoy had only 5 tanks not 20 as always. Maybe one day I will improve the script.

 

13 hours ago, 72AG_SerWolf said:

Hello everyone.

One question.

Axis side now havent tanks (976/975), but I see at least 2 tanks convoys on the map.

Allied side have tanks (775/800), but I dont see any tank convoys on the map.

Whats wrong?

 

 

No tanks are generated if limit is exceeded (in general but there is still a small bug) but tanks genersted before the limit was exceeded are still moving toward enemy city for the next few missions. 

 

Allied didn't exceed the limit so it was possible to generate tanks but tanks are not generated every missions. That time they hadn't been generated.

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

1 hour ago, =LG=Kathon said:

Example: 

It was 970/975 so tank convoy is generated. During that mission 6 tanks were destroyed so now it's 976/975.

 

Ideally if tank convoy had only 5 tanks not 20 as always. Maybe one day I will improve the script.

O.k. Thank you for explanation.?
So I assume that 2621/2240 trucks in the previously mentioned picture has the same behavior.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

 

It's important to remember that this is related to damage against structures. Structures are far more susceptible to bomb blasts than vehicles, especially armored vehicles. 

Yes, I was mostly talking about what people is reporting with bomb effectiveness vs depots targets.
 

2 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

Interesting. Now the total blast area of 4 x 250 bombs is bigger than that of 2 x 500 bombs; in v4.004 it was the reverse. Do you have data for 100kg bombs?

Looks like this is also according to the image I posted:

For example 4 x 500lb (250 Kg) bombs separated have a combined total destruction area of 80 feet radius, so 24 meters (if they are separated properly), 2 x 1000lb bombs (500 Kg) is 66 feet, so 20 meters and a single 2000lb bomb (1000 Kg) even less at 54 feet, 16 meters.

It is correct to have a more effective total destroyed area by having more spread out smaller bombs than equal weight of less bigger bombs.

Edited April 29, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Aero*Bohemio]

Nice videos @72AG_SerWolf 72AG and 19FAB are great squadrons, it's really inmersive to have the chance to see your raids!

That 2nd video of the il2 lofting rockets...insane, never seen that before. 

 

Molodec!

[E69_Soec]

4 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

These conditions are no more strange than any other. On map # 3, the blue ones could, for example, concentrate on destroying the red tanks when they lost all their own and the front rolled to the West. Or you could focus on destroying enemy aircraft.

TAW is just interesting in that it is necessary not just to fly stupidly, but it makes sense to apply different strategies based on the situation on the map and the availability of resources. It's like chess.

Personally, it was obvious to me a few days ago how this could all end. Conditions with tanks are known to all, the figures are on the site. These are just rules of the game that each team uses to their advantage.

I'm not saying this because I'm playing blue this time; I'll fly red the next one. I don't care about finishing this map as a draw, or a win. I'm not complaining.

 

I just said that the winning conditions could be improved to avoid unrealistic behaviours like killing your own tanks imho . Who will benefit from this? All, I think.

[Aero*Bohemio]

16 minutes ago, E69_Soec said:

I just said that the winning conditions could be improved to avoid unrealistic behaviours like killing your own tanks imho . Who will benefit from this? All, I think.

 

What? Who would in his right mind kill his own tanks in a war simulation for achieving a victory? It has never happened and this is not Warthunder. If someone is found exploiting the server like that he would get a fast foot to his ass like it happened with xjammer sometime ago. 

I like the winning conditions we have, i like having other variables too like tanks for winning conditions, only focusing in planes supply is repetitive and boring IMO.

[E69_Soec]

35 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

What? Who would in his right mind kill his own tanks in a war simulation for achieving a victory? It has never happened and this is not Warthunder. If someone is found exploiting the server like that he would get a fast foot to his ass like it happened with xjammer sometime ago.

Wow, why so mad? I just said my opinion about how I believe the game could be improved,  as polite as I could. You should try.

 

I've find here more competitiveness than I expected, and much more than I like. I can just say I won't do kill my own tanks, but I'm not that optimistic about people. Anyway, I hope you are right.

 

 

[Aero*Bohemio]

36 minutes ago, E69_Soec said:

Wow, why so mad?

 

Why you assume i'm mad? I'm not...i also gave my opinion.

 

S!

[CisTerLordWukits]

I'm not saying I would...


But orders are orders.....
 

[ROSS_WedRuSs]

Сегодня за два вылета на немецкий аэродром Скворин (непонтяно почему Скворин, по карте это Березовский) мною было уничтожено 3 ангара и несколько самолётов на стоянке. НИ ОДНА ЦЕЛЬ НЕ ЗАСЧИТАНА В СТАТИСТИКУ! требую разобраться в неполадке, записи обоих вылетов прикрепляю в качестве неопровержимых доказательств.

https://yadi.sk/d/-HYBODsmHnDS9A \ ссылка на вылет в статистике - https://taw.stg2.de/ru/pilot_sortie.php?id=68223&name=ROSS_WedRuSs

https://yadi.sk/d/o_IC0_HgTQLwhw \ ссылка на вылет в статистике-  https://taw.stg2.de/ru/pilot_sortie.php?id=68180&name=ROSS_WedRuSs

Edited April 30, 2020 by ROSS_WedRuSs

[=KG76=flyus747]

8 hours ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

Interesting. Now the total blast area of 4 x 250 bombs is bigger than that of 2 x 500 bombs; in v4.004 it was the reverse. Do you have data for 100kg bombs?

FAB100

Radius increased from 45 to 76.4

Shrapnel Quantity increased from 2800 to 8994

[WokeUpDead]

27 minutes ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

FAB100

Radius increased from 45 to 76.4

Shrapnel Quantity increased from 2800 to 8994

 

So it has a bigger blast radius than the FAB 250 now?

[=KG76=flyus747]

1 minute ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

So it has a bigger blast radius than the FAB 250 now?

ever so slightly yes.

FAB250 has 75.4

FAB100 has 76.4

 

 

[72AG_SerWolf]

3 часа назад, ROSS_WedRuSs сказал:

Сегодня за два вылета на немецкий аэродром Скворин (непонтяно почему Скворин, по карте это Березовский) мною было уничтожено 3 ангара и несколько самолётов на стоянке. НИ ОДНА ЦЕЛЬ НЕ ЗАСЧИТАНА В СТАТИСТИКУ! требую разобраться в неполадке, записи обоих вылетов прикрепляю в качестве неопровержимых доказательств.

https://yadi.sk/d/-HYBODsmHnDS9A \ ссылка на вылет в статистике - https://taw.stg2.de/ru/pilot_sortie.php?id=68223&name=ROSS_WedRuSs

https://yadi.sk/d/o_IC0_HgTQLwhw \ ссылка на вылет в статистике-  https://taw.stg2.de/ru/pilot_sortie.php?id=68180&name=ROSS_WedRuSs

May be this targets was damaged somebody before you

[=KG76=flyus747]

11 hours ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

 

It's important to remember that this is related to damage against structures. Structures are far more susceptible to bomb blasts than vehicles, especially armored vehicles. 

The document this photo comes from Terminal Ballistics Data, Volume III, Bombs, Artillery, Mortar Fire & Rockets (1944) makes sure to actually explain the targets they tested on to achieve these results. Since this is before the bombing of Japan, the document notes they don’t currently have data on Japanese targets (which are different construction than Germans).

 

It notes that the results from this document (including the photo) were tested against ‘Typical German Load Bearing Walls’ and that effects “may be up to 5x greater” against “Japanese soft targets.”

16 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

How does the damage in game compare to this? Looks like the distances are in feet:

 

^ the photo I’m referring to

Edited April 30, 2020 by =KG76=flyus747

[E69_Qpassa_VR]

3 hours ago, =TY=Anaconda_tiesa said:

 

Hey Anaconda, you have to increase the number of air kills of your TAW account, you are no longer in the top 5.

Kind regards

Edited April 30, 2020 by E69_Qpassa_VR

[Chivas_Regal]

10 hours ago, E69_Soec said:

I'm not saying this because I'm playing blue this time; I'll fly red the next one. I don't care about finishing this map as a draw, or a win. I'm not complaining.

 

I just said that the winning conditions could be improved to avoid unrealistic behaviours like killing your own tanks imho . Who will benefit from this? All, I think.

It is strange that you have thoughts of destroying your side's equipment. This is not necessary. Blue pilots themselves perfectly destroyed the red tanks. The only thing that the pilots of our squadron, for example, did was that they focused on protecting their airfields a few days ago, and at the same time did not prevent the blue pilots from destroying our tanks. We deliberately sacrificed them in order not to lose the map.

[CisTerDRock]

Has anyone found a fix to the error #10009 crashes.

 

I'm about to shelf this game next to Cliffs of Dover.

[E69_Soec]

1 hour ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

 our squadron (...) did not prevent the blue pilots from destroying our tanks. We deliberately sacrificed them in order not to lose the map.

That's exactly the behaviors I said, nice! So you don't defend them to get a draw, and germans should've not attacked the red tanks to win the map... do you think this is a realistic scenario?

 

Anyway, I don't care. I just suggested what I considered an improvement.

 

 

[LLv24_Zami]

31 minutes ago, E69_Soec said:

That's exactly the behaviors I said, nice! So you don't defend them to get a draw, and germans should've not attacked the red tanks to win the map... do you think this is a realistic scenario?

 

Anyway, I don't care. I just suggested what I considered an improvement.

 

 

Well, this is a game after all, people use gamey things when it`s possible. And it`s always somehow possible. TAW is fun but it has little to do with realism, that`s the way it is in every server. 

1 hour ago, D-Rock said:

Has anyone found a fix to the error #10009 crashes.

 

I'm about to shelf this game next to Cliffs of Dover.

Is it only on the TAW server?

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by LLv24_Zami

[Chivas_Regal]

27 minutes ago, E69_Soec said:

That's exactly the behaviors I said, nice! So you don't defend them to get a draw, and germans should've not attacked the red tanks to win the map... do you think this is a realistic scenario?

 

Anyway, I don't care. I just suggested what I considered an improvement.

 

 

Yes, this was our strategy and it was completely within the rules of the server. The blue pilots could have focused on destroying static planes and not touching the red tanks, but they preferred to end this map in a draw. No one is to blame if other people don't want to think.

[herald-of-death]

3 hours ago, E69_Qpassa_VR said:

Hey Anaconda, you have to increase the number of air kills of your TAW account, you are no longer in the top 5.

Kind regards

I will give the account to the champion, from a 1v1 tournament that will take place very soon, I have learned that there will be no similar prizes to medals until the end of the year, if there are no medals it is not worth playing much

[FTC_Prancing]

imagine flying TAW to win medals

[todeskvlt]

2 hours ago, =TY=Anaconda_tiesa said:

if there are no medals it is not worth playing much

 

[E69_geramos109]

On TAW where the stats matter for a lot of people thanks to this we can have the worse experience ever. 

A lot of people with VR told me how they were able to see contacts on their base just after take off from more than 50km away. After a lot of talking and a lot of weird experiences about being intercepted I decided to see that by myself. 

Some VR users will complain afraid to lose their advantage over the rest but is funny to see them complaining about how bad they see in Vr while they tell how much enemies are taking off from whatever base to text to the side all info after that.

 

 

[todeskvlt]

8 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

On TAW where the stats matter for a lot of people thanks to this we can have the worse experience ever. 

A lot of people with VR told me how they were able to see contacts on their base just after take off from more than 50km away. After a lot of talking and a lot of weird experiences about being intercepted I decided to see that by myself. 

Some VR users will complain afraid to lose their advantage over the rest but is funny to see them complaining about how bad they see in Vr while they tell how much enemies are taking off from whatever base to text to the side all info after that.

 

We have to ban all players with VR in nickname

[E69_geramos109]

4 minutes ago, =L/R=todchenko said:

 

We have to ban all players with VR in nickname

You can use the cheat in 2d as well

[Mad_Mikhael]

Aren't mods disabled on the server? Besides, I don't have Migoto mod or any other mods and sometimes I can see white dots 60km from me, but when they got closer they change to black dots and can't see them anymore. Generally speaking, it depends on the light.

Edited April 30, 2020 by =LG=Mad_Mikhael

[E69_geramos109]

7 minutes ago, =LG=Mad_Mikhael said:

Aren't mods disabled on the server? Besides, I don't have Migoto mod or any other mods and sometimes I can see white dots 60km from me, but when they got closer they change to black dots and can't see them anymore. Generally speaking, it depends on the light.

Are you Able to see at 8000m alt  from 60 km a base and telling all your side... Ok there are 5 IL2 and 2 escorts taking off heading this sector?? Ok with the migoto You can

Edited April 30, 2020 by E69_geramos109

[Mad_Mikhael]

1 minute ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Are you Able to see from 60 km a base and telling all your side... Ok there are 5 IL2 and 2 escorts taking off heading this sector?? Ok with the migoto You can

Sometimes I'm able to spot planes at the base but not recognize what kind of planes are they since they appear only as white small dots. And it's hard to tell which direction they are flying or which exactly sector it is.

[=LG/F=Kathon]

I did more tests and have just updated the durability of the trains and depots. Unfortunately my PC has died again so can't test remaining objects (I hope replacing main board battery will help).

[Aero*Bohemio]

This time i have to agree with Geramos. I’m really sorry if not having this MOD is game braking for VR users, but right now is the same for all others. For me is frustrating to be jumped by people i don’t see, while they can see you from 40km and set their attack. They see everything while i struggle to keep a contact in sight flying below me 1000m away.

 

Yesterday i shared a flight in TS with a guy who kept seeing things i couldn’t at all untill i was at close range and just because i followed him, it was like having an AWACS, not fair, game braking and should be forbidden.
 

The only thing i dislike about his video, is the whining tone as if everybody doing well this TAW is because they use this cheat ?

[E69_geramos109]

15 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

This time i have to agree with Geramos. I’m really sorry if not having this MOD is game braking for VR users, but right now is the same for all others. For me is frustrating to be jumped by people i don’t see, while they can see you from 40km and set their attack. They see everything while i struggle to keep a contact in sight flying below me 1000m away.

 

Yesterday i shared a flight in TS with a guy who kept seeing things i couldn’t at all untill i was at close range and just because i followed him, it was like having an AWACS, not fair, game braking and should be forbidden.
 

The only thing i dislike about his video, is the whining tone as if everybody doing well this TAW is because they use this cheat ?

Would be not one of my videos without a little bit of whining. Not everyone is using this for sure but just with one informing about everything he can see taking off from his base is enought

[LLv24_Zami]

2 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

This time i have to agree with Geramos. I’m really sorry if not having this MOD is game braking for VR users, but right now is the same for all others. For me is frustrating to be jumped by people i don’t see, while they can see you from 40km and set their attack. They see everything while i struggle to keep a contact in sight flying below me 1000m away.

 

Yesterday i shared a flight in TS with a guy who kept seeing things i couldn’t at all untill i was at close range and just because i followed him, it was like having an AWACS, not fair, game braking and should be forbidden.
 

The only thing i dislike about his video, is the whining tone as if everybody doing well this TAW is because they use this cheat ?

Look at this Chima, on this we all agree ?

 

I`ve had two VR headsets in the past, Rift and Rift S. I did not use this mod while flying with them, I heard about it but was too lazy to install. Now I regret it, I should have tried it to see how it looks in VR. I don`t own the headsets anymore, I didn`t like the resolution they offered. I don`t doubt the VR guys who say it`s necessary which makes it very problematic. 

 

Just recently I heard that this mod can be used in regular 2d display. I tried it and it`s like the Geramos said. I think it`s the worst for the bomber guys, you can see them taking off from very far away and where they`re heading. It`s unfair to say it mildly.