Tactical Air War

[Norz]

Just now, JGr8_Leopard said:

Very easily your mask is thrown off and your essence is exposed. Pettiness, quarrelsomeness, resentment at the "small" .... brain. 

 

As you wish. I think you know what I think about it.

[[110]xJammer]

4 hours ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

 

It is - we've been doing this for years. As only two of my squadron have been flying actively during this campaign, it didn't have huge impact, but drops that took 5-8 buildings on depo/AF were quite common. 

 

 

 

2/3 fighters take out AAA and bring bombs / cannon the buildings -> 2-5 buildings per fighter.

 

Ju88/A20 comes along, further 20-50 buildings are destroyed (my personal best was 54 buildings at depot with 6x250 + 28x50kg bombs)

 

(Equivalent IL2 can take out ~30 buildings with rockets / bombs / cannons)

 

 

  

2 hours ago, mincer said:

and fought relentlessly (being killed over and over again)

 

 

The fact that a kamikaze squad was able to stop such a favourable position that you describe shows little of the effort, and much more the flaws of the current system (i.e. 20h ban vs. team imbalance).

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by [110]xJammer

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

50 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

The fact that a kamikaze squad was able to stop such a favourable position that you describe shows little of the effort, and much more the flaws of the current system (i.e. 20h ban vs. team imbalance).

Or maybe, (just maybe), our opponents really sucked at getting stuff done ? The fact that it took axis team almost a week to take a singe town on map #6 while having a total superiority in numbers says it all. If it takes that much time and effort to protect a single column and wipe out defenses, then the problem is clearly with the pilots, not the system. And on the last map, when we had a single chance to wipe out the remaining airfields, we used it immediately, game over.

Edited November 25, 2020 by mincer

[=FSG=FRITZ]

1 hour ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

 

There's nothing left to discuss.

 

 

 

Consonant. It is ridiculous to discuss the simulation of the events of the Second World War based on a 1977 document :) But the fact remains: in that war all sides beat the pilots who left the plane. Why there is a lot of evidence in the memoirs of German Allied and Soviet pilots.

[Norz]

52 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

Equivalent IL2 can take out ~30 buildings with rockets / bombs / cannons

 

xJammer, you should test it first. You are wrong.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[=/Hospiz/=Szopen]

3 minutes ago, Norz said:

You are wrong.

 

He is not wrong. Buildings on depo can be destroyed by rockets and 30 mm cannons, we have checked it.

[=AD=Denisik_FL]

2 hours ago, =/Hospiz/=Metalhead said:

Il2 has 240 bombs, so in theory it can wipe out both depots in one flight.

Looks like you have never touched Ju-88.

Give me 3 fighters as cover, and I will kill 44 buildings on a dare. And at the expense of the IL-2, fly it at least in a simple editor.

[Norz]

3 minutes ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

 

He is not wrong. Buildings on depo can be destroyed by rockets and 30 mm cannons, we have checked it.

 

He mentioned IL2. 

 

1.  2x23mm will not take 14..16 buildings.

2.  2x37 will not take 14..16 buildings.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[=AD=Denisik_FL]

59 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

(Equivalent IL2 can take out ~30 buildings with rockets / bombs / cannons)

 

 

Fly with a new model of damage, tell me how many you will kill)

[[110]xJammer]

29 minutes ago, mincer said:

Or maybe, (just maybe), our opponents really sucked at getting stuff done ? The fact that it took axis team almost a week to take a singe town on map #6 while having a total superiority in numbers says it all. If it takes that much time and effort to protect a single column and wipe out defenses, then the problem is clearly with the pilots, not the system. And on the last map, when we had a single chance to wipe out the remaining airfields, we used it immediately, game over.

 

 

If its your loss, its always the system (we were outnumbered, we did not have the fighters the map was terrible etc). If its your victory, it must be the effort of your fighters and the suckiness of the opponents  I like that logic.

[Giovanni_Giorgio]

Just now, [110]xJammer said:

 

 

If its your loss, its always the system (we were outnumbered, we did not have the fighters the map was terrible etc). If its your victory, it must be the effort of your fighters and the suckiness of the opponents  I like that logic.

No, if it is a draw, it is always the system! If we lose (Maps #1 and #6), we give full credit to our opponents!

[Norz]

7 minutes ago, [110]xJammer said:

If its your loss, its always the system (we were outnumbered, we did not have the fighters the map was terrible etc). If its your victory, it must be the effort of your fighters and the suckiness of the opponents  I like that logic.

 

What is about the last east campaign? (03.2020..05.2020). Can you explain why the axis team didn't win?

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Aero*Bohemio]

Well, LW got the fighters stats and VVS got the victory,  so probably most are happy...and it's quite historical too! It seems the smartest and better coordinated team won, congrats reds!  победа!

[Chivas_Regal]

2 hours ago, [110]xJammer said:

The fact that a kamikaze squad

Jammer reproaches someone for the kamikaze style? Very funny ?

1 hour ago, =/Hospiz/=Szopen said:

Buildings on depo can be destroyed by rockets and 30 mm cannons, we have checked it.

How about 110?

110 can do this with 20 mm cannons. Here they posted a video of the attack of the blue team airfield on the map of Moscow. There you can clearly see how buildings were destroyed from course weapons

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

4 hours ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

The only reason red won was thanks to the unhealthy relentless contribution of Sober sky, in number of hours and effectiveness in ground pounding(specially map 5) . Take that away, fly like how most of LW have and you have a serious imbalance.

 

Checking statistic page, there really isn't any imbalance in terms of flight hours that would really support that. I am not downplaying your contribution but we also had certain people on Blue side who were playing a lot this campaign.

[SV7_Vase]

6 hours ago, =22AMG=Denisik said:

Dropping bombs is not a problem.

Ju-88 carries 44 to 50. Pe-2 10 to 100.

In theory, a German bomber can kill 44 buildings, while a Soviet one can kill only 10.

one more reason for whining ? 
god cant wait till Arado... will need a lot more of popcorn to read all the comments here in the future

[FTC_Kongoo]

35 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Checking statistic page, there really isn't any imbalance in terms of flight hours that would really support that. I am not downplaying your contribution but we also had certain people on Blue side who were playing a lot this campaign.

Oh Im not dismissing that blues didn´t put the hours. But but like Mincer added there was quite a bit of inter squad coordination added on top of it at times. And speaking of stats, now that you mention it, compare =TH= with the following squads in the list in terms of hours and ground kills. If the contribution from them was more comparable to say what some of the lw squds put in, victory would have gone to the blues...

[WokeUpDead]

22 minutes ago, ACG_Vietkong said:

Oh Im not dismissing that blues didn´t put the hours. But but like Mincer added there was quite a bit of inter squad coordination added on top of it at times. And speaking of stats, now that you mention it, compare =TH= with the following squads in the list in terms of hours and ground kills. If the contribution from them was more comparable to say what some of the lw squds put in, victory would have gone to the blues...

 

I'd love to see a stat that shows total hours flown per side, per map. I did it once for a map in a previous campaign; it was very interesting but my semi-manual method to put it together was too much work.

[Cpt_Siddy]

[Norz]

1 hour ago, WokeUpDead said:

 

I'd love to see a stat that shows total hours flown per side, per map. I did it once for a map in a previous campaign; it was very interesting but my semi-manual method to put it together was too much work.

 

Check the attachment. Here is the list of the players in the missions (Mission 1, 2, ...514)

 

Header:

 

Mission  

Player

Flight Time

Flight Time (Minutes)

AK

GK

Deaths

 

TAW Pilots.zip

 

 

3 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Checking statistic page, there really isn't any imbalance in terms of flight hours that would really support that. I am not downplaying your contribution but we also had certain people on Blue side who were playing a lot this campaign.

 

Really?

 

Axis team, minutes

Allied team, minutes

Diff %

 

844125

722450

15%

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[=KG76=flyus747]

26 minutes ago, Norz said:

 

Check the attachment. Here is the list of the players in the missions (Mission 1, 2, ...514)

 

Header:

 

Mission  

Player

Flight Time

Flight Time (Minutes)

AK

GK

Deaths

 

TAW Pilots.zipUnavailable

 

 

 

Really?

 

 

Axis team, minutes

Allied team, minutes

Diff %

 

 

844125

722450

15%

 

 

While a disparity certainly exists in playtime and number of players registered per side, that only tells half the story. Is there data that can illustrate the average quality of players on both sides because I don't know how that can be measured. Definitely not by killstreak that's for sure. I think that was what ensured Red victory in this campaign. What they lacked in numbers they more than made up for in quality/competency.

 

While it is true that on average, there were more Blues than Reds etc... I know my personal experience was very much the opposite of this because of the hours I play on. There were many instances when I  was on where it was simply me vs the Reds for upwards of four hours. A small window like this where one team can 'stack server' is enough to undo all the hard fought progress made by all players during populated hours.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

You know what would fix a lot of our problems?

 

increasing the map duration significantly to even out the spikes in player numbers of either side.

 

Maybe it is not possible technically to increase the map duration significantly but maybe there is a workaround for it. Our current problem is that targets die too quickly in hours where there are only very few players online. Maybe it is possible to "slow" the gameflow down by either making the missions longer or the targets tougher?

 

It would help a lot if during a player spike they could only significantly influence one missions instead of being able to roll half the map or more.

[Norz]

8 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Maybe it is not possible technically to increase the map duration significantly but maybe there is a workaround for it. Our current problem is that targets die too quickly in hours where there are only very few players online. Maybe it is possible to "slow" the gameflow down by either making the missions longer or the targets tougher?

 

It would help a lot if during a player spike they could only significantly influence one missions instead of being able to roll half the map or more.

 

 

 

 

 

Once more. Do we have +15% on the red side? No. How to fix it? Small changes. Did I ask something that will change the ratio more than for 5%?

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

First of all, if you want to play statistics, you have to go deeper than that. While this is in indication, it does not necessarily mean anything in terms of significance for the campaign.

 

Secondly, 15% difference is not the real problem. The problem are player spikes in low player number scenarios, especially when combined with a timeframe over several missions. Can we agree on that?

[Norz]

7 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

First of all, if you want to play statistics, you have to go deeper than that. While this is in indication, it does not necessarily mean anything in terms of significance for the campaign.

 

Secondly, 15% difference is not the real problem. The problem are player spikes in low player number scenarios, especially when combined with a timeframe over several missions. Can we agree on that?

 

It is problem for me, on my hours:

 

1. I do not like to play on the axis side when we have +15%.

2. I do not like to play on the red side on these planes when we have -15%.

 

My experience on TAW says that it is the same issue every time. But last 12 months it is better than before. True.

 

For me it is not important who will win. Last campaign we lost (Axis), did I ask to change something? Yes, I asked to change the red plane set. Are you happy to destroy Yak1 again and again (or Lagg3) almost the whole campaign (With 109F4, 109G2, 190A3)? I am not.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Well i am concerned about the general balance of the campaign so we aren't really on the same page.

 

Considering your problem, i don't think it is possible to change it. Axis is simply more popular than vvs. We already have a mechanic in place that limits the amount of numerical superiority. Which is by the way, not well liked by a lot of players. Do you have a suggestion that would make vvs more popular? keep in mind TAW is supposed to have a semi historical planeset.

[Norz]

4 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Well i am concerned about the general balance of the campaign so we aren't really on the same page.

 

Considering your problem, i don't think it is possible to change it. Axis is simply more popular than vvs. We already have a mechanic in place that limits the amount of numerical superiority. Which is by the way, not well liked by a lot of players. Do you have a suggestion that would make vvs more popular? keep in mind TAW is supposed to have a semi historical planeset.

 

 

 

Ok, can you explain me, map No5. Why is it so important to use Lagg3 as the +1 plane instead of Yak1? Where is the problem here?

 

Do you insist that the plane Yak1 is equal 109F4? Can we compare Lagg3 with 109F4?

 

Answer 1 : no

Answer 2 : no

 

Solution: the best plane of these 2 should be +1 plane.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Norz

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Just now, Norz said:

Ok, can you explain me, map No5. Why is it so important to use Lagg3 as the +1 plane instead of Yak1? Where is the problem here?

 

I don't know, i am not involved in any way with the development of TAW. I would suppose because it is the counterpart to the G2 and it wasn't as available as the Lagg 3 during that time frame but i am sure that others can answer that better. Afaik, the Lagg in that timeframe had a better engine than we have in game but those are limitations that the TAW devs can't do anything about.

 

But the bottom line is, do you think that the yak being +1 would make vvs more attractive to the point that it would significantly change anything? I really don't think so.

[Norz]

1 minute ago, Operation_Ivy said:

But the bottom line is, do you think that the yak being +1 would make vvs more attractive to the point that it would significantly change anything? I really don't think so.

 

I think that the red players will use it instead of Lagg3. That is enough. Small changes, only next campaign will show, does it change something or not.

[FTC_Prancing]

If you can't fix the number of pilots because one side is more popular, then once again, the only thing you can do is scale the damage done in proportion with the ratio of hours flown each Mission, still didn't heard any valid point against that. Valid for both sides, totally balanced.

 

But guys, LG have said that they'll also try to balance the registrations for the next TAW, let's see..

Edited November 26, 2020 by ACG_Prancing

[Gustav_Hagel]

41 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

I don't know, i am not involved in any way with the development of TAW. I would suppose because it is the counterpart to the G2 and it wasn't as available as the Lagg 3 during that time frame but i am sure that others can answer that better. Afaik, the Lagg in that timeframe had a better engine than we have in game but those are limitations that the TAW devs can't do anything about.

 

But the bottom line is, do you think that the yak being +1 would make vvs more attractive to the point that it would significantly change anything? I really don't think so.

I think the popularity from TAW decreased in favor of it's competitor, the fins, because of planeset. Many times I've seen the server fuller than TAW, simply because they have their unhistorical planeset which favored VSS, by that I mean that map where the best fighter LW could have was E-7, meanwhile VSS had mig-3s. Clearly there are those who don't want to play in the weakest side, but unfortunately seems that those who don't care about any historicity are the majority in this simulator.

[LLv44_Oke]

.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by LLv24_Oke

[JG4_Matthias]

TAW is over, it's time to donate ?

[JGr8_Leopard]

It is ridiculous to read, with what great efforts the Air Force overcame such a formidable and powerful enemy and with what tension they pulled out victory at the last moment
Let's just compare which aircraft the Air Force won. Accurate official data. Who disagrees - officially disagree with the developers

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational-details/

FACTS
Map 1 - VVS jets June and September (!) 41 against LV 40 and useless MC200 without guns 42.
Map 2 - MiG3 July 41, but no F4 June 41, only weak F2 March 41
Map 3 and 4 - VVS May and September (!) 42 versus 1 aircraft 42 years old. Again no 190A3 from March 42.
Map 5 - VVS already has a plane April 43 versus March and May 42. Haha
Map 6 - P39 end 42, Yak 1b + 9 - 2 aircraft 43 against all the same May 42 and 1 aircraft 43. Again, no 190A5 since spring 43.
Map 7 and 8 - VVS 4 aircraft 43 vs 3 aircraft 43 at LV

FACTS - LV always uses outdated aircraft, VVS unreasonably has the best modifications and always has technical superiority.
A formidable and powerful enemy is VVS on this server with this planeset LV is the whipping boy. HAhaha

Edited November 26, 2020 by JGr8_Leopard

[Norz]

21 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

It is ridiculous to read, with what great efforts the Air Force overcame such a formidable and powerful enemy and with what tension they pulled out victory at the last moment

 

Did this person visit the server "Berloga" at once? Just curious.

 

I can bet: this player is one of them who said that 109g2 is better than 109f4.

 

Spoiler

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5063-лтх-и-особенности-эксплуатации-самолетов-проекта/

 

Bf 109 F-4 522 км/ч
Bf 109 G-2 530 км/ч

 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Norz

[Chivas_Regal]

14 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

VVS unreasonably has the best modifications and always has technical superiority

This is the funniest thing I've read here 

[CSW_Rannisokol]

4 hours ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

Map 3 and 4 - VVS May and September (!) 42 versus 1 aircraft 42 years old. Again no 190A3 from March 42.

This Is what game specifications say, right? But Yak-1 and LaGG-3 were in operational state from the start of the war. The Yak-1 ser.69 only means, that this is one of the production series and it is very similar to the first series, which were already in use in 1941. Same with LaGG-3, I would only see your complain reasonable, if we had LaGG-3 with slats and we don't have this version. So, try sometimes read some books, before only rewriting the game specs.

[Rafcio]

19 minutes ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

But Yak-1 and LaGG-3 were in operational state from the start of the war. The Yak-1 ser.69 only means, that this is one of the production series and it is very similar to the first series, which were already in use in 1941.

You are wrong. Do you hear  about V-105 and V-105 PF engine diferences. Also laterJak or ŁaGG had less weight.

Edited November 26, 2020 by =L/R=Rafcio
No reason.

[CSW_Rannisokol]

1 hour ago, =L/R=Rafcio said:

You are wrong. Do you hear  about V-105 and V-105 PF engine diferences. Also laterJak or ŁaGG had less weight.

Yes, I said very similar, not same. Difference between M-105PA (fitted in early Yak-1) and M-105PF is 110hp. The model what we have, flies 582 km/h at 4000m. The early Yak-1 from 1940 was flying 569 km/h at 4950m. Also, our Yak is about 220 kg lighter. But I personally don´t think that these marginal differences are the reason, why not put Yak-1 to the map 3. Also, the FW-190 was introduced in September 1942 (at eastern front), not May, like the JGr8_Leopard said.

[Rafcio]

1 hour ago, CSW_Rannisokol said:

 But I personally don´t think that these marginal differences are the reason, why not put Yak-1 to the map 3. 

Marginal differences you said. 

Yak-1 series 69

Empty weight: 2365 kg

Maximum power in Nominal mode (2550 RPM) at sea level: 1240 HP

110 HP more and 220 kg ligher you wrote.

Almost 10 percent.

Marginal?