Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

These missions are won&lost too quickly in my opinion. One maybe easy solution could be that tank/vehicle columns would be scattered little bit. Like simulate a situation that advancing tank column knows that they are under aerial attack and most of the units will drive off the road to look cover. So instead of these straight columns we would see tanks in same locations but scattered a bit like to 100m radius from lead tank on the road. Same thing should be done to defence positions, instead of that tight circle how they are placed now they should be placed in that area but more scattered. Wonder if that would be possible, atleast this way the amount of ground units would not have to be increased...

 

I think depots should stay as they are to encourage high altitude bombing, maybe double the amount of them(but reduce the penalty when damaged/destroyed) if that's not too heavy for the server...

Probably has a bit to do with people learning the system and by extension the best method of moving the front line forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes people are learning the system and getting better destroying ground targets. That's why I think these columns should be scattered a bit away from the roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving tanks, even if they are just patrolling on a circuit, would be cool.

 

AAA, no matter how ridiculous, only goes so far.

 

Ships and Bridges would be cool too.  There needs to be at least one type of important target that heavy ordnance shines against... right now, Blue has a slight advantage against airfields, assuming you don't get one-shotted... but tanks are heavily weighted in favor of the IL-2, and defense points are arguably also slanted in that direction just based on the amount of ords a single IL-2 can carry... in the early maps, it's not even a comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, the front line was in the middle. And we began to attack only three of against your crowd. Red was 3, blue 13. began to shoot down the blue they just piled up. At the end of the summer 7: 7

Here is a screenshot of the last cards http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/uploads/monthly_11_2016/post-107970-0-35205300-1478558245.jpg

 

But just 35:6 http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/uploads/monthly_11_2016/post-107970-0-00799000-1478562066.jpg

 

This I mean - do not need to invent. The imbalance is and on both sides of this. And it will continue until the time is divided into battle (the most balanced time). The non-combat front line should not move. Or at least Ratio.

Well apparently they needed a 3-1 advantage to neutralize my elite skills lol

Edited by Kai_Lae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

109e7 vs Pe-2 during Tactical Air War Tour 4, Map 1.

 

I feel this is a pretty good representation of the amount of damage PE-2's can absorb with the current damage model.  After reviewing the logs, this PE-2 RTB'd and landed successfully.

 

IMHO, this matchup is tough for the Germans due to the five areas identified below:

Troll Disclaimer: I'm not a historian and this is just my interpretation of my experiences.  I do not know if these are historically accurate, but this is how they are represented in game.

The e7's guns are weak.

The e7's airframe is weak.

The PE-2 is super durable.

I-16 guns are super powerful.

I-16 airframe is super durable (I experienced similar results when attacking I-16s with the the e7's 20mm MGFF---- 15mm on F-2 is far more effective).

 

 

Good Hunting Gentlemen.

only one thing for this, russian developers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only one thing for this, russian developers

 

Please do not feed the Troll 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only one thing for this, russian developers

 

Please do not feed the Troll 

 

Are you saying I'm trolling by sharing what appears to be a bug with the damage model, or maybe not?    I'm no historian as mentioned, but it sure seems like something doesn't match up. I even posted this in the Bug reports section for developer review.

 

Are you saying the damage taken by the Pe-2 represented in that video is accurate from your point of view, Haza?

 

TWB makes a concerted effort to help the community via reporting bugs like this, developing scrips to track pilot and coalition availability on IL-2 servers, collecting and donating to the popular IL-2 servers to assist with their operations costs, and providing insight directly to the developers of more complex issues with game operation.

 

If you have a way to assist the community is some way please do so, but unfortunately posts like these do the exact opposite.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All he is saying is don't blame it on Russian Dev bias...

 

this gets no where, it was not a comment on your post Pand, but on undertakers

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited by Dakpilot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying I'm trolling by sharing what appears to be a bug with the damage model, or maybe not?    I'm no historian as mentioned, but it sure seems like something doesn't match up. I even posted this in the Bug reports section for developer review.

 

Are you saying the damage taken by the Pe-2 represented in that video is accurate from your point of view, Haza?

 

TWB makes a concerted effort to help the community via reporting bugs like this, developing scrips to track pilot and coalition availability on IL-2 servers, collecting and donating to the popular IL-2 servers to assist with their operations costs, and providing insight directly to the developers of more complex issues with game operation.

 

If you have a way to assist the community is some way please do so, but unfortunately posts like these do the exact opposite.

Pand,

 

 

As Dakpilot appeared to have explained my comment, I was not going to reply, but as you appear to have asked me a direct question I will just give you my whole response!

 

 

Whether you are right or wrong, I couldn't care less, however, I do care that you believe that there is an issue that perhaps needs to be addressed or at least acknowledged that it will be looked at.  What I do despise, is those who either dismiss a claim or believe that there is some conspiracy theory going on behind the scenes which has created the issue(s) in the first place.  There are many players out there, including yourself, who appear to spend a lot of time gather information/observations or support the sim with financial contributions for the purpose I believe of the greater good of the community and for that nobody should knock these players.  However, derailing players views or posts by writing non value adding one liners only ends up dragging the original issue down a path that either causes the issue to be lost or forgotten or just creates a lot of ill feeling.  Therefore, my comment was not directed at you!

 

 

Regarding the pointed question about the PE-2 damage, I like you am none the wiser as to how well the PE-2 did in combat or how or what damage it was able to sustain.  I have designed Battle Damage Repair schemes for relatively modern military aircraft and it always amazed me to see what damage could be inflicted on an aircraft structure with a relatively small calibre firearms or how one 7.62mm round could take out a vital system, therefore, I do appreciate that trying to model all of this in a game regarding an aircraft over 80 years old is not an easy thing to do.  However, I for one have always ended up on the wrong side of a fight against an E-7 when I have been in my PE-2 35, although I always seem to fare better when I'm in the PE-2 87 against other 109 variants, but I do not know enough about the differences if any with regards to the airframe to explain why this is so.

 

 

 Therefore it was interesting to watch your video to understand what your point was and to actually see/watch the damage modelling.  However, let's have a constructive discussion as a community and try to put a case forward, as i do believe that the PE-2 should not have been able to survive such a hammering, although that is just an observation based on nothing else.  However, before the haters start on my post, I'm sure that the FW190 lobbyists will tell me otherwise about raising FM issues, but I have faith that this issue will eventually be resolved, also.

 

 

 

Lastly,  the one thing I did learn from your video and it has nothing to do with FM but just good practice is to always check your 6 or have a wing man to do it for you, although to be honest I to was surprised how quickly you were taken out.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

Haza.

Edited by Haza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something must be wrong.

 

3:25 UTC+1 i start from Surovikino and while my wheels left the ground another plane came in for landing and a second plane right behind him turns away.

2 min. later i recognice he is a enemy and turned arround to the airfield but get show down arround 2 km north from it.

Surovikino 0% damage and defense average - but the aaa didnt fire a single shot and was not red marked.

After my resawn i see long range and short range aaa exist - http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=20886&name=I./ZG15_dasSofa

Edited by I./ZG15_dasSofa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pand,

 

As Dakpilot appeared to have explained my comment, I was not going to reply, but as you appear to have asked me a direct question I will just give you my whole response!

 

Whether you are right or wrong, I couldn't care less, however, I do care that you believe that there is an issue that perhaps needs to be addressed or at least acknowledged that it will be looked at. What I do despise, is those who either dismiss a claim or believe that there is some conspiracy theory going on behind the scenes which has created the issue(s) in the first place. There are many players out there, including yourself, who appear to spend a lot of time gather information/observations or support the sim with financial contributions for the purpose I believe of the greater good of the community and for that nobody should knock these players. However, derailing players views or posts by writing non value adding one liners only ends up dragging the original issue down a path that either causes the issue to be lost or forgotten or just creates a lot of ill feeling. Therefore, my comment was not directed at you!

 

Regarding the pointed question about the PE-2 damage, I like you am none the wiser as to how well the PE-2 did in combat or how or what damage it was able to sustain. I have designed Battle Damage Repair schemes for relatively modern military aircraft and it always amazed me to see what damage could be inflicted on an aircraft structure with a relatively small calibre firearms or how one 7.62mm round could take out a vital system, therefore, I do appreciate that trying to model all of this in a game regarding an aircraft over 80 years old is not an easy thing to do. However, I for one have always ended up on the wrong side of a fight against an E-7 when I have been in my PE-2 35, although I always seem to fare better when I'm in the PE-2 87 against other 109 variants, but I do not know enough about the differences if any with regards to the airframe to explain why this is so.

 

Therefore it was interesting to watch your video to understand what your point was and to actually see/watch the damage modelling. However, let's have a constructive discussion as a community and try to put a case forward, as i do believe that the PE-2 should not have been able to survive such a hammering, although that is just an observation based on nothing else. However, before the haters start on my post, I'm sure that the FW190 lobbyists will tell me otherwise about raising FM issues, but I have faith that this issue will eventually be resolved, also.

 

 

Lastly, the one thing I did learn from your video and it has nothing to do with FM but just good practice is to always check your 6 or have a wing man to do it for you, although to be honest I to was surprised how quickly you were taken out.

 

Regards

 

Haza.

Salute Haza!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of Frustrated pilots since last patch . 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight some very strange goings on . BF-110 `wheels collapsed on taxi to run way , this happened to me tonight but last night `i seen it for myself with another BF-110 taxing on to the run way and the right side wheel collapsed . ??? 

would this be a bug With the flight model or has this some thing to do with the airfields .

 

Thank you =LG= for your hard work here . 

I see collapsing landing gears quite often in the last couple of days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see collapsing landing gears quite often in the last couple of days. 

Can you please give more info , 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please give more info , 

Ju88s were landing gears are after takeoff not retracting, landing Ju88s were landings gears are collapsing. Even 109s from time to time. I dont know more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im bomber, so why i have in TAW aircraft statistics Bf 109 E-2 +1 and Bf 109 E-4 +1? That is nonsense, why i do not for example Bf 110 +1 or Ju 87 +1??

And yes, i'm registered with prefered aircraft - bombers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathon,

 

As much as I like playing on your server and although the stats say that the sides are fairly even, recently when I have logged on in during my time-zone, VVS have been outnumbered by as much as 5:1.  Although a few of us have tried to get various missions together, we have ended up being vultched on or near the airfield as the location of where you are spawning is given away by those silly stars on the airfield icon and we are now having seconds thoughts about logging into the server to play when we are so vastly outnumbered.  

 

Although there are those out there who might jump onto their soap box and start telling us that we should spawn in at another airfield (although location still given away by the stars), I was wondering whether to try and spice up the game a bit and to encourage players to join/stay, whether it would be possible during the lower populated periods, to allow players to spawn into tanks to defend a city/airfield etc, as I'm sure winning a map when there is no opposition might be great fun to begin with, but if this trend were to continue I'm sure players would look elsewhere for some action (IL2 game action and not down the pub type action).  

 

Perhaps by allowing players the opportunity to engage tanks with tanks, this might perhaps not only balance the playing field during quiet periods, but it might/would also allow targets to be mobile and perhaps add a little more realism for those who are attacking tanks from the air.

 

For your consideration and thank you

 

Haza

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps by allowing players the opportunity to engage tanks with tanks, this might perhaps not only balance the playing field during quiet periods, but it might/would also allow targets to be mobile and perhaps add a little more realism for those who are attacking tanks from the air.

 

For your consideration and thank you

 

Haza

 

Brilliant idea, Haza !

 

Yes, please make tank/tank engagements possible, would add an enormous amount of immersion and make balancing much easier... !

Edited by Geleitzug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need just one Finn there....

 

During winter-war there was a saying that one Finn is as good as 10 Russkies... ;)

 

-veccu-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't... It's a weekday and I have to work!   Good hunting gentlemen!

 

See you this weekend.

 

we need just one Finn there....

 

During winter-war there was a saying that one Finn is as good as 10 Russkies... ;)

 

-veccu-

Go test your theory. Start with pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of Frustrated pilots since last patch . 

I dont have problems in multi (at this time), but cant play the Veteranen Missions since last update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See you this weekend.

 

Go test your theory. Start with pixels.

 

I dont have to, I allready have my man there... ;)

 

post-16474-0-19338800-1478783183_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i be there at 10-11 pm their time - probably to find out that we just have only one airbase :P

 

Well back then there was unemployed work order which would solve this issue :)

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ju88s were landing gears are after takeoff not retracting, landing Ju88s were landings gears are collapsing. Even 109s from time to time. I dont know more.

 

Have you sent a BUG report . I seen it again last night a 110 tipped over while taxing . 

Kathon,

 

As much as I like playing on your server and although the stats say that the sides are fairly even, recently when I have logged on in during my time-zone, VVS have been outnumbered by as much as 5:1.  Although a few of us have tried to get various missions together, we have ended up being vultched on or near the airfield as the location of where you are spawning is given away by those silly stars on the airfield icon and we are now having seconds thoughts about logging into the server to play when we are so vastly outnumbered.  

 

Although there are those out there who might jump onto their soap box and start telling us that we should spawn in at another airfield (although location still given away by the stars), I was wondering whether to try and spice up the game a bit and to encourage players to join/stay, whether it would be possible during the lower populated periods, to allow players to spawn into tanks to defend a city/airfield etc, as I'm sure winning a map when there is no opposition might be great fun to begin with, but if this trend were to continue I'm sure players would look elsewhere for some action (IL2 game action and not down the pub type action).  

 

Perhaps by allowing players the opportunity to engage tanks with tanks, this might perhaps not only balance the playing field during quiet periods, but it might/would also allow targets to be mobile and perhaps add a little more realism for those who are attacking tanks from the air.

 

For your consideration and thank you

 

Haza

I do agree to some of that ,why not have AI Yaks or 109s. ive seen Tank drivers  just drive to the nearest airfield and vulch ,seen it on other servers . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathon,

can you pls answer on my question??

 

Thx...

planeset_v1.4.2.jpg

 

That is the current planeset for this campagin, we know it is not perfect and we are going to change it for sure.

But! Because you chose the 'bombers' preference, from 3 combat mission you get firstly supplied bombers, and that's all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

planeset_v1.4.2.jpg

 

That is the current planeset for this campagin, we know it is not perfect and we are going to change it for sure.

But! Because you chose the 'bombers' preference, from 3 combat mission you get firstly supplied bombers, and that's all.

 

Ok, i know - 3 missions = 1 bomber, but if i prefered bomber, why is "+1" in fighters? Is possible in future change that to the bombers?  :)

 

aircraft_status.png

 

Thx, Tistar

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello!

 

My Finnish squadmate LLv32_Arttuprkl has messed with his registering to TAW. Can you please remove these both accounts and he is going to register again with a clean table:

 

LLv32_Arttuprkl (he don't remember the password...)

LLv_32Arttuprkl (wrong squad tag)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i know - 3 missions = 1 bomber, but if i prefered bomber, why is "+1" in fighters? Is possible in future change that to the bombers?  :)

 

aircraft_status.png

 

Thx, Tistar

 

The +1 is universal, based on the map.  Everyone gets these planes replenished each frame/mission, regardless as to what you fly or what your personal preference checkmark is set to.  

 

Your personal preference (The fighter/bomber checkbox) only affects the planes which you will be resupplied with when YOU complete 3 combat missions without dying or getting captured.

 

I think it's great having only fighters available as free planes, honestly... an IL-2 can tank some AA hits no problem, and absolutely wreck an armored column.  Having them delivered to your inbox like spam makes the ground game pretty rough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this mr. Putin´s order or what... ;)

 

-veccu-attachicon.giftaw.JPG

 

Can't be true - if it would be his order you would only see green little men on holiday trip...  ;):biggrin:

Edited by Geleitzug

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...