Jump to content

Tactical Air War


Recommended Posts

=TH=mincer
6 minutes 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.


Yes. In addition, we undertook a massive effort to coordinate between pilots that could fly in different time zones so that they would scramble in case of a desperate situation on the front line and save the map. Those efforts were unseen from the outside, but they were real. In addition, we suffered massive losses all the time due to flying very risky missions. There are almost no red pilots with big streaks left because all of us were killed too often. Yet everything looks perfectly balanced for our opponents, after all we even won somehow! Also everybody forgets that on the half of the maps the Allies side was pushed into the corner in a day, and fought relentlessly (being killed over and over again) just to draw a map in the best case. And everything is still balanced.

The issue is that this cohesion was a very unique experience, I did not experience anything like that during the previous campaigns I played. It just happened due to organizational efforts of the few folks who brought people together, and then it grew attracting more and more pilots. There is no guarantee that something like that will happen in the next campaign. If you take away the cohesion that the allied pilot demonstrated in the last few weeks, you will end up with maps being over in a day and no organized opposition on the Allied side. So, blue pilots, do you really want to play on an empty server with no opposition? If so, then everything was balanced indeed.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_Gustav_Hagel
31 minutes ago, =FSG=FRITZ said:

Correct title of the document: "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War". A paratrooper who has jumped on HIS territory is not a prisoner of war and is not affected by the provisions of the Convention. Is it so hard to understand? As for Eisenhower's directive, it emphasizes the ban on shooting paratroopers precisely because the Allies (and the Germans, no doubt) did just that. And also there it means "not to shoot at paratroopers over the liberated territory". Read: "do not shoot at prisoners"

 

EDIT: A correction, we are talking about aircrew hanging in a parachute, not paratrooper, which was always clear at this point.

----------------

EDIT2: I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked."

 

There's nothing stricly saying about liberated territory.

------------------

 

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

 

 

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status

 

1366 These rules of warfare, or of conduct between combatants as they are sometimes called, are basically those contained in Articles 22 [ Link ] and 23 [ Link ] , paragraph 1(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)of the Hague Regulations. In addition to the general [p.382] principle by which the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited, they contain two types of fundamental rules: on the one hand, humanitarian rules, and on the other hand, rules on good faith. The humanitarian rules prohibit killing or wounding an enemy who has laid down his arms or no longer has the means to defend himself and has therefore surrendered unconditionally; they also prohibit refusing to give quarter and causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The rules on good faith prohibit killing or wounding the enemy treacherously, as well as deceiving him by the improper use of the flag of truce, of national emblems or of enemy uniforms, and also by the improper use of the red cross emblem. Every military Power, without exception, must include these fundamental principles in the instructions it issues to its troops.
 

 

[p.386] 1378 As regards the term "combatant and prisoner-or-war status", used as the heading of Section II, one may recall the headings found in Section I of the Hague Regulations, viz., "On belligerents" or even more specifically "The qualifications of belligerents", and "Prisoners of war". Apart from the fact that the order of the sections is reversed, the structure used in the Protocol for these subjects is therefore the same as that of the Hague Regulations.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=28100BC17CDD4D95C12563CD0043246D

 


1380 This Section is aimed primarily at reaffirming and developing Articles 22 [ Link ] , 23 [ Link ] (b),(c), (d), (e),(f), and 24 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations of 1907. Article 23 [ Link ] (a), which deals with the prohibition of poison, was not included, as particular individual weapons were the subject of separate studies. In fact, this omission has no effect on the prohibition which remains fully in force. Similarly, the rules relating to the treatment of enemy property (Article 23 [ Link ] (g) and (h)) were not included here as this problem seemed to be less urgent. On the other hand, three absolutely new provisions, which have no equivalent in the above-mentioned articles of the Regulations, have been introduced. These are concerned with the protection of the environment (Article 35 [ Link ] -- ' Basic rules, ' paragraph 3), with the responsibilities at the national level relating to the introduction of new weapons (Article 36 [ Link ] -- ' New weapons), ' and with the protection of airmen in distress (Article 42 [ Link ] -- ' Occupants of aircraft ').
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=89CB1D31CA4A3BCAC12563CD0043254F

 

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

 

I think this should be more than clear that it's not referring only to POWs. There's nothing left to discuss.

 

 

 

Edited by SCG_Gustav_Hagel
Link to post
Share on other sites
=/Hospiz/=MetalHead

On the side note, I just noticed, that the forum war has broken milestone of 500 pages. 

Congratulations to everyone involved! I look forward to another 500. Hopefully we hit 1000 page mark in nearest future.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JGr8_Leopard
4 часа назад, Norz сказал:

Very precise analysis after only 11 hours on the server ...

It takes so little time to see all whining reds and beg for additional benefits.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JGr8_Leopard said:

It takes so little time to see all whining reds and beg for additional benefits.

 

I know...little time = small brain. Thank you for your notation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JGr8_Leopard
2 минуты назад, Norz сказал:

I know...little time = small brain. Thank you for your notation.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JGr8_Leopard said:

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
[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 by [110]xJammer
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer
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 by mincer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
=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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
=/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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=Denisik
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=Denisik
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=TH=mincer
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
ECV56_Chimango

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!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
=2ndSS=Lawyer1
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

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG_Vietkong
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
WokeUpBlue
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
=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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Norz
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ACG_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 by ACG_Prancing
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BlackSix locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...