Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, SCG_Vieira said:

Right now, our last tanks should be closing their last AFs. I guess the draw is now inevitable.

If both team loses all tanks its a draw?? Otherwise blue wins by plane attrition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

If both team loses all tanks its a draw?? Otherwise blue wins by plane attrition

 

The manual is a bit outdated. But according to what happened on the last couple of TAWs and also the explanations in the forum, if both teams run out of tanks it is a draw.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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


You’re probably right, I probably don’t have enough of a sample size for my gut feel

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SCG_Vieira said:

 

The manual is a bit outdated. But according to what happened on the last couple of TAWs and also the explanations in the forum, if both teams run out of tanks it is a draw.

I see you were right but imho it makes no sense.

 

For example, in this map blues had an important plane advantage (which is a win condition), but they lost their tanks (which is not a win/lose condition).

Let's imagine that the red's plane limit was a bit closer, it might happen that reds, before losing the map due to reaching the planes limits, destroy their own tanks to force draw before losing.

 

I think that the rules should prevent this kind of scenarios, because it makes no sense to attack your own troops. It is more realistic that without tanks, both teams focus on destroying planes, raiding AFs, etc.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, E69_Soec said:

I see you were right but imho it makes no sense.

 

For example, in this map blues had an important plane advantage (which is a win condition), but they lost their tanks (which is not a win/lose condition).

Let's imagine that the red's plane limit was a bit closer, it might happen that reds, before losing the map due to reaching the planes limits, destroy their own tanks to force draw before losing.

 

I think that the rules should prevent this kind of scenarios, because it makes no sense to attack your own troops. It is more realistic that without tanks, both teams focus on destroying planes, raiding AFs, etc.

 

The blue players themselves destroyed the red tanks until the last mission. You can view the statistics of at least your squad's pilots.

Although the blue players could agree not to touch the red tanks, focusing on destroying the remaining red 177 aircraft.

 

Mutual destruction of tanks is the only chance of a draw. For one team, this is a way not to lose the map, and for the other, it is a missed victory.

If, for example, the blue side had only one working airfield, then a draw would be a reason for the blue team's joy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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 .

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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?

 

 

TAW_tanks_Stalingrad333.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by AKA_Relent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

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

 

unknown.png

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

TAW_tanks_Stalingrad333.jpg

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.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by ROSS_WedRuSs
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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:

 

unknown.png

^ the photo I’m referring to

Edited by =KG76=flyus747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by E69_Qpassa_VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =TY=Anaconda_tiesa said:

if there are no medals it is not worth playing much

 

PikPng.com_meme-png_2575455.thumb.png.edc9ccfee03dd66be4323be94f023301.png

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Thanks 4

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...