Tactical Air War

[=LG=Blakhart 279]

The main problem I see there is that the all modern fighters in VVS operational usage consisted just a minority of all planes available. To the date of Barbarrossa start the MiG-3 was most common, few units were in transition to Lavockin's fighter and retraining on Yak didn't start yet. The far most common fighter type of that period was I-16 and some units still used even the I-15/153. Within the Luftwaffe on the other hand just one gruppe was equipped with Emils while the rest units were using various versions of Friedrich. Therefore I see the current initial planeset as balanced due gameplay and slighly favorizing VVS

 

LG as a hosts play both sides. You think we would like to favorize any of them ?

 

Anyways...

Instead of telling what is wrong WITHOUT any arguments, facts, data, etc. plz go back to your books with info about planes used in early Barbarossa, make a photo, post it here and propose a planeset using the Kathon`s layer.

 

I`m not joking. When someone have good and logical arguments we listen him caerfuly. 

 

Cheers and good luck in the virtual skies!

 

p.s.

And I`m back... Finally... 

Edited February 11, 2017 by =LG=Blakhart

[19//Moach 381]

looking at the +1 markings on the chart above, I fear I'm already seeing a source of mismatched odds (aka "bias") in fleet numbers to each side

 

 

notice how the german team starts off with four +1 types, whereas reds get only 3

 

 

this would make sense if it were so at the first couple of maps, then switched around towards the end in what could be thought of as a historical^{[citation-needed]} interpretation of the order of battle

 

but no, that's not even the case - let alone that given how russian losses were mind-bogglingly huge, any such "feature" would be a biased proposition unless offset by appropriate countermeasures

 

 

that had only been my first impression - either way, my point is solely made on a numerical basis, waiving all historic arguments for the sake of game balancing

 

 

looking at the rest of the chart, it is evident that this "oddity" persists throughout all maps - germans, having one extra option of "failsafe" plane for an undeniable advantage once the almost-inevitable (and typical of TAW) state of "player fleet depletion" sets in for a significant amount of team members

 

 

 

just picture a situation where a large amount of players have come to their last resources - if the same is true on both sides, the germans have 33% more "free tries" than the russians, on each map turn to amount (grind up) the CMs needed to restore their options 

 

 

 

another concern for fairness, considering a hypothetical worst-case scenario where a player manages to lose the plane every time he flies, for the sake of statistics - this is the total plane/attempt numbers for each map under the given conditions:

 

 

total number of planes (of any kind) available on map start

 

               red              blue

map 1:          7                 9

map 2:          9                11 

map 3:          9                10

map 4:          9                10

map 5:          8                10

map 6:          9                11

map 7:          9                11

 

 

statistically, the offset in numbers is undeniable - perhaps this is intentional, as a counter-factor* to how over the last rounds of TAW the reds have (arguably) had better team coordination in a general sense?  or maybe this is to appease repeated claims of the highly controversial "russian bias of IL2"?  

 

*isn't this kind of insulting to the blue team? I mean, I flew blue last time and had my ass kicked so hard it hurt my teeth, but still....

 

 

who knows?....

 

 

of course - this does not account for the capabilities of the given aircraft, and only holds true to full effect in the total loss scenario here hypothesised 

 

 

regardless, it feels all the more wrong that the assumption has been made that ALL players own every single one of the released theaters and planes when setting up the fleets -- this is inevitably bound to stop a number of players I know of, and a great deal more that I estimate, (by numerical extrapolation) from joining the first two maps on the red side, to name one undesirable consequence

 

 

 

 

 

with all things considered, it seems to me that TAW might still suffer (though, with quorum deleted, (it was worth the experiment) less severely) from the same issue it has had ever since it introduced harsh punishments for failure/death without proper means of fallback or relief, that is:  

 

 

at often times, given server conditions, it is strategically more advantageous not to play

 

 

 

sure enough - it is a learning process, and these issues are never clear beforehand - it is only from Retrospect (a brilliant place, where all are geniuses) that a new concept can be judged as to whatever effect it may have had

 

 

so now, we get to find out

Edited February 12, 2017 by 19//Moach

[StG77_HvB 708]

Thank you, Blakhart. My two cents indicated in the chart below. Without knowing the exact time frames of each map I am roughly dividing them between the period between August 1941 and January 1943 as seven sequential time blocks of approximately 2.5 months each. I looked to maintain historical accuracy in aircraft operational use, with the factor of available quantity being represented by the difficulty of gaining and maintaining specific aircraft into one's personal plane set through achieving successive combat missions, while maintaining a rough level of parity of fighter aircraft performance between both sides. My references are listed below. I am primarily interested in Luftwaffe history and had to use the internet to research Soviet aircraft availability, so I could be in error on the operational availability of some of those aircraft.  For example, I know the Mig-3 and Yak-1 were both in production prior to Barbarossa, but had hiccups in production numbers as factories were moved east of the Urals. The Ju-88 was present in numbers commensurate to the He-111 from the start of Barbarossa and its absence is a glaring historical inaccuracy. 

 

I believe that offering people the opportunity to fly certain aircraft as they were historically available, provided they work hard and smart to gain and hold on to the ones not present in large numbers historically, will make the server more appealing to more people. 

 

References:

Warplanes of the Third Reich - Green

German Luftwaffe in WWII - McNab

Me 109 F-K - Radinger/Otto

Bf 109 F-K Series - Prien/Rodeike

Junkers 88 Vol 1/2/3 - Medcalf/Forsyth

Barbarossa - Bergstrom

Stalingrad - Bergstrom

Black Cross Red Star Vol 1/2/3 - Bergstrom/Mikhailov

Stopped at Stalingrad - Hayward

War Over the Steppes - Hooton 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by I./StG77_HvB

[bald_eagle 50]

at often times, given server conditions, it is strategically more advantageous not to play

This sums the only real problem of TAW. All the other problems are minor and transient compare to that. 

[=TBAS=Sschatten14 427]

how does that work ?
 

[=IL2AU=chappyj 113]

i *think* what he means is that if the server is at all populated, the chances of getting killed are high enough that its better to reserve your aircraft for lower population times. 

could be wrong though.

[bald_eagle 50]

how does that work ?

 

http://taw.stg2.de/manual.php

[II./JG1_Pragr 124]

LG as a hosts play both sides. You think we would like to favorize any of them ?

 

Anyways...

Instead of telling what is wrong WITHOUT any arguments, facts, data, etc. plz go back to your books with info about planes used in early Barbarossa, make a photo, post it here and propose a planeset using the Kathon`s layer.

 

I`m not joking. When someone have good and logical arguments we listen him caerfuly. 

 

Cheers and good luck in the virtual skies!

 

p.s.

And I`m back... Finally... 

You missed my point. My post was not intended as complain about something. I just pointed out why there is no MiG-3 on first maps and why the F-2 will come a bit earlier than MiGs. I have no problems with plane set as it is at this moment. In fact I have no problem to fly under any circumstances.

[=LG=Blakhart 279]

And you missed mine.

 

Do not expect the TAW will do SOMETHING for You! 

DO SOMETHING for the TAW.

 

:D

[II./JG1_Pragr 124]

I still think you missunderstand me. I have absolutely zero complains against anything in TAW concept. I see it as a very well defined with well balanced plane/weapons set. My first post here was intended to clarifying why there are no MiGs at the start of the campaing as Tumu propose.

 

As I wrote in other thread the plane set shall be balanced every time. In almost every case there would be some balance options, profiting one side while hurt the other. Once it works for red, once for blue. That's something common and need to be taken due playability.

 

Once again, I have no complains against the plane set in TAW. There is no need to be offensive.

[=TBAS=Sschatten14 427]

Ok i tried digging through 75 pages to see if i could find the reason behind He-111 Transports being forced to Carry Full Fuel Load (8 hours + when the longest trip on maps is around 25 mins)

I Mean all it does it makes the plane extreme slow & dangerous to fly
And landing a HE-111 with more than 95% fuel load(after a 45 min flight) WITHOUT BOMB is rather unrealistic and IRL would have caused severe wing damage specially for inexperienced pilots. .

I mean why not just allow minimum fuel or atleast say require pilot to fill 5% For every 50KM they have to fly

Edited February 12, 2017 by =WFPK=Sshadow14

[19//Moach 381]

i *think* what he means is that if the server is at all populated, the chances of getting killed are high enough that its better to reserve your aircraft for lower population times. 

could be wrong though.

 

 

that is pretty much it -- whenever a team is outnumbered, and attrition rates aren't working on your favor (chronic base rape, you know how it goes) - it is a vastly better tactic to back off, and let the AAA provide the enemy casualties, as both teams have the same available numbers, and no features are made to encourage even the slightest offensive action

 

most sorties are then exclusively flown in guerrilla warfare style - the famous "one pass and haul ass" method is the only tactic that doesn't severely jeopardize the team's "attrition quota" 

 

 

TAW is in my opinion, gone way too far in promoting defensive behavior on players - to such a degree where it creates a situation which is comparable to WW1 trench warfare - except that the stalemate is broken (with predictable regularity) by the flow time of players in and out of the server and the resulting outnumbering conditions

 

 

 

in game design, this is known as a "dominant strategy" - and is usually a thing designers strive to avoid -- one example of it in other games is how most RTS titles will degrade to a speed-clicking competition, which is massively more relevant than any actual strategy being used

 

 

TAW currently lacks features to promote aggressive action against targets - especially under unfavorable odds - one suggestion to achieve this would be a quorum-like system which affects fleet losses (not map progress) - so when outnumbered over a given degree (delta > 50%) a team's aircraft losses would be marked down, or even disregarded in extreme cases (like ∆ >500%)

 

another possibility (not exclusive of the first) would be to provide one "failsafe" aircraft type which is unlimited - this could be a restricted loadout variant of a low-value type (like, I-16 peashooters only) - losses on such types should be either disregarded or scaled down

 

also, any takeoffs from an airfield which is under attack should be considered a "scramble" -- anyone brave enough to do such a thing deserves a reward for doing heroics which currently mean nothing better suicidal team-hurting folly - scramble sorties should count as +3CM with any result besides death or disco - scramble losses should not count as harshly

 

 

 

also - a ditched plane in friendly territory, provided any AK/GK (or 15 mins "patrol") are logged, should count as a combat mission - in a practical sense, as long as the "sim pilot" can conceivably fly again, a mission has no reason to be deemed a failure, unless nothing of value was achieved before trashing an airplane

 

 

 

those are some of my thoughts on TAW - as it currently stands...

 

 

at the time of this posting, the server has 16 red against 29 blue - due to chronic base attacks, it is very much more advantageous for the team to go fly on WoL instead- sadly

Edited February 12, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Jade-Rabbit 46]

Reporting Teamkiller: Wotan_

 

During the second round of the first Moscow map, The other two Ju52s and me were preparing to take off, this Ju87 piloted by Wotan_ deliberately dived in damaged my Ju52 by his machine gun and dropped a bomb to kill the other two ju52s for absolutely no reasons. Here is the evidence:   (In addition,  the server admin can check the server record for his false behaviour).

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=416&name=Wotan_

Edited February 12, 2017 by III./JG5_JadeRabbit

[StG77_Darbzy 605]

 

 

TAW currently lacks features to promote aggressive action against targets - especially under unfavorable odds - one suggestion to achieve this would be a quorum-like system which affects fleet losses (not map progress) - so when outnumbered over a given degree (delta > 50%) a team's aircraft losses would be marked down, or even disregarded in extreme cases (like ∆ >500%) another possibility (not exclusive of the first) would be to provide one "failsafe" aircraft type which is unlimited - this could be a restricted loadout variant of a low-value type (like, I-16 peashooters only) - losses on such types should be either disregarded or scaled down also, any takeoffs from an airfield which is under attack should be considered a "scramble" -- anyone brave enough to do such a thing deserves a reward for doing heroics which currently mean nothing better suicidal team-hurting folly - scramble sorties should count as +3CM with any result besides death or disco - scramble losses should not count as harshly also - a ditched plane in friendly territory, provided any AK/GK are logged, should count as a combat mission - in a practical sense, as long as the "sim pilot" can conceivably fly again, a mission has no reason to be deemed a failure, unless nothing of value was achieved before trashing an airplane

 

Excellent suggestions

[MeoW.Scharfi 1172]

Hey,

 

can you delete my Account on TAW. "MeoW.Scharfi"

Thank you.

[=LG=Kathon 1233]

Quick question: Does landing with airdrop supply instead of crates consider as supplying an airfield too? As well as dropping supply instead of landing it? Cause I'm kinda into supply drop stuff. 

Unfortunately no. Didn't have time to add airdrop supply. Maybe in the next campaign.

 

Reporting Teamkiller: Wotan_

 

 

banned.

[=TBAS=Sschatten14 427]

So regarding the HE-111 Transport Fuel loads???

Meow what happened?

[19.FS//pezman 305]

So regarding the HE-111 Transport Fuel loads???

 

Meow what happened?

It's to simulate the weight of cargo.

[JG4_Retnek 296]

Congratulations to the launch - server is rock solid, nearly no stutterings (that rare it could be anything - server, line trouble, high ping ...). Blue overwhelming as usual, n.p. (Viel Feind, viel Ehr!) with that.

 

Just one sad decision: "you have to destroy the enemy bridge and nearby dugouts" - trucks and trains crossing a smashed bridge just because a field position nearby is intact? It hurts, a gaming setup. Bridges are fruitless targets for classical horizontal bomber raids now. Difficult enough to hit a bridge with wind etc from 4000! Place lot's of light AA around it, make it destroyable by 250 and 500 kg bombs only - but don't couple a success with dugouts, please.

[DerSheriff 1048]

We from Hydra published ur Skins. They are downloadable here.

Feraphic has send the skins to Kathon as well.

[=TBAS=Sschatten14 427]

why hit the bridge from 4,000m

geez we were the first on TAW when it start i flew 111 to train station had cloud cover @ 3km so i did 2 split S's down to 1,000M
Then dove bomb on train station as cloud base was 800m

No AAA hit me tho many fired.
Not easy to hit a Barrel rolling 111 doing 500-550kph @ only 50ft AGL 

[=IL2AU=chappyj 113]

i see that known cheaters are being permitted on server... .bit of a shame

[=TBAS=Sschatten14 427]

Yes why not ban the very well know il2 hackers from the start..

YOU DONT NEED VISUAL EVIDENCE - JUST STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO PROVE HACKING..

If 1,000 people (entire game pop in thei example) average 2 kills in 3 deaths than 1 person managers 10 kills in 3 deaths on Average.. (from stats alone there is enough evidence to ban them)
Just like its enough to ban an athlete without drug proof if they run in half the time of everyone else.



 

[Etherlight 375]

You realize that statistical anti-cheat systems (Like FairFight for example) operate not only on K/D or K/hr, but on many variables and only with a significantly higher amounts of data than a niche-game like this could provide? The really interesting stats like headshot ratio, accuracy etc. don't really apply here, since there is no known "Aimbot" from what I know. So a statistical outlier, if not beyond realistical probability, does not prove hacking, no. ^^ I am more easily convinced by behaviour than by stats in this game, to be honest, which, unfortunately, is hard to prove.

[DerNeueMensch 54]

Yeah, let's maybe please not punish success!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk 859]

Yes why not ban the very well know il2 hackers from the start..

 

YOU DONT NEED VISUAL EVIDENCE - JUST STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO PROVE HACKING..

 

If 1,000 people (entire game pop in thei example) average 2 kills in 3 deaths than 1 person managers 10 kills in 3 deaths on Average.. (from stats alone there is enough evidence to ban them)

Just like its enough to ban an athlete without drug proof if they run in half the time of everyone else.

 

 

 

 

Well know?? Just guessing from previous posts about cheating accusations.

MR X is not a cheater.

[=LG=Wicher 62]

i see that known cheaters are being permitted on server... .bit of a shame

 

 

Yes why not ban the very well know il2 hackers from the start..

 

YOU DONT NEED VISUAL EVIDENCE - JUST STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO PROVE HACKING..

 

If 1,000 people (entire game pop in thei example) average 2 kills in 3 deaths than 1 person managers 10 kills in 3 deaths on Average.. (from stats alone there is enough evidence to ban them)

Just like its enough to ban an athlete without drug proof if they run in half the time of everyone else.

 

Just because somebody is good you think he/she deserves ban? There are no evidences that anyone is cheating, and false accusation is something not cool guys. I don't know, maybe someone is a cheater, but we don't have any proof for that. And If you want to get rid of cheateres maybe speak with devs, so they create a good anti-cheat system? And yes, you need visual evidence, some guys are playing really long flight sims and mastered the art of it to perfection, and just because they kicks ass of others, does not mean they are a cheaters!

Edited February 13, 2017 by =LG=Wicher

[II./JG77_Kemp 543]

 

 

YOU DONT NEED VISUAL EVIDENCE - JUST STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO PROVE HACKING

 

That is simply not true. Statistical evidence only gives probabilities, but does not PROVE anything. Statistics could say that there is very low probability of something happening, but it does not say that it is impossible. If people get in average 2 to 3 numbers correct in a lottery of 6 out of 49, does it prove that the guy that got 6 out of 49 correct was cheating, because the probability of that is around 1 out of 14 million? To prove that something is impossible, you need more than statistics.

 

 

 

If 1,000 people (entire game pop in thei example) average 2 kills in 3 deaths than 1 person managers 10 kills in 3 deaths on Average.. (from stats alone there is enough evidence to ban them)

 

That is total nonsense. If you take 1000 people and make then run 100 metres and they manage it in 15-20 seconds in average and then you have a guy that is doing constantly around 12 seconds, is that good enough evidence to ban him?

 

 

 

Just like its enough to ban an athlete without drug proof if they run in half the time of everyone else.

 

It is? I have never heard of that. So if Usain Bolt was invited to a charity competition and he ran 100 metres in something like 9 seconds, it is enough to ban him, if everyone else took 18-20 seconds? 

[II./JG1_Pragr 124]

Two years ago I achieved 78 kills streak playing Rise of Flight on Syndicate server. According to the statistics, I have to be considered as cheater. Luckily the community there was well known and most other people never based their opinion on false assumptions. But usually when someone from Wings of Liberty server came on Syndicate and saw my streak such people immediately knew I'm cheating

 

Seems like nothing change in last couple of years.

Edited February 13, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[Emuyen 15]

Two years ago I achieved 78 kills streak playing Rise of Flight on Syndicate server. According to the statistics, I have to be considered as cheater. Luckily the community there was well known and most other people never based their opinion on false assumptions. But usually when someone from Wings of Liberty server came on Syndicate and saw my streak such people immediately knew I'm cheating

 

Seems like nothing change in last couple of years.

Guys let's stay trendy and call it "fake news" or "alternate skill" 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk 859]

There were more players with 100 or more streaks in Rof and nobody did complain.

[curiousGamblerr 953]

On X:

 

The guy has decades of multiplayer simming experience, a high end setup with his settings perfected through that experience, and literally runs a paid flight school. I know it's tempting to say he's cheating, but I tend to believe he's just way better than most of us. I'll also add that I was killed by him many times as a new player, but after becoming half decent at this game and getting my wits about me, it hasn't happened since. In my book, he's a wolf that preys on lambs, not a cheater, until someone proves otherwise. With proof, not sham statistics.

 

On the server as a whole:

 

Balance was dismal throughout the first day. I'm hoping Pand publishes his stats for this campaign, will be interesting to see. When asked if any of the Germs wanted to switch, they all said no. This was after, in a 45 v 12 situation, a squadron of 109s descended on our Pe-2 flight a grid out of our rear airfield. Clearly they had checked the "dots" and seeing us all spawning there decided to come murder us. 

 

I can't argue against using the dots, everyone does it and I chalk it up to having a spy or collaborator calling in activity at an airfield. Sure. What I do think is unsustainable is the refusal to take advantage of the side switching capability. I'm always a supporter of playing this game how you want, and that means choosing whatever side you prefer, but in this case it was only through my encouragement that the rest of the downed Pe-2 pilots didn't switch to WoL. Everyone was very frustrated in face of the overwhelming odds. If this continues, the reds are going to stop playing on TAW, and nobody wants to see that happen. So, if you see odds like that, consider switching for the good of the server (heck, I only started learning russian planes back in the day because of the imbalance on WoL- many of us would prefer to fly German all the time, but I'd rather balance sides).

 

Other blues said "don't worry, the reds will still win." Well, winning because the blues throw themselves into the flak isn't very fun when reds are being slaughtered while they form up over rear airfields. I'd much rather lose with even sides than "win" like this.

 

I'll stop rambling and go to work now... It's only been a day so I have faith it will work itself out. Good luck out there.

[bald_eagle 50]

You can see TWB stats page here:

http://www.thewetbandits.org/smf/index.php?topic=285.0

[bald_eagle 50]

Some suggestion to try to balance the numbers.

During times when 1 side has 2 to 1 advantage:

The side with the higher numbers don't get CM.

The side with the lower numbers don't lose plane.

It will not prevent players from playing. But it will encourage the desired behaviour.

[Emuyen 15]

Some suggestion to try to balance the numbers.

During times when 1 side has 2 to 1 advantage:

The side with the higher numbers don't get CM.

The side with the lower numbers don't lose plane.

It will not prevent players from playing. But it will encourage the desired behaviour.

take me as a terrible pilot. What do I do when my hangar is empty and I don't have any possibility to replenish it?

[19.FS//pezman 305]

[[110]xJammer 60]

After flying a little:

 

- High Alt flak appears to be incredibly accurate. It also has amazing tracking capability when it was able to take me out in a high speed turn on the deck.

- Tank high-calibre SPAA is also too accurate firing at low alt / fast aircraft. I can understand HE-111 getting taken out by several at 2km alt, but when E7 gets it's wing blown off at 300m going ~400kmph its a little over the top

- Its possible to get negative aircraft apparently! Keep flying it as long as it was available early on and get "Not valid plane" loose the plane and have nothing what you did count. Random Expert can update the credit/plane availability mid mission, TAW needs that ASAP.

- Getting new planes is a little brutal. With Random Expert and WOL still around I hardly feel inclined to fly 3 supply missions each being 15 minutes (45 minutes of my time!) to just get 1 single plane and get shot down by yet another lucky shot from the flak. I understand the fun aspect of making the planes count, but I doubt the server will grow.

 

 

Otherwise a very fun server to fly on. I started ground attacking a lot more now that it actually counts for something!

 

P.S. I heard it being mentioned that one of the reasons reds don't generally fly on the RE/TAW is the lack of GPS. Don't know how true that is.

Edited February 13, 2017 by xJammer

[Ari 5]

Just wanted to congratulate the server admins on a job well done. First few days on TAW has been very enjoyable and very realistic. Every mission is a challenge and I am looking forward to the remainder of the month. 

[19//Moach 381]

Some suggestion to try to balance the numbers.

During times when 1 side has 2 to 1 advantage:

The side with the higher numbers don't get CM.

The side with the lower numbers don't lose plane.

It will not prevent players from playing. But it will encourage the desired behaviour.

 

 

 

just in the lines of what I had previously suggested

 

 

 

I will now offer you a mathematical method for balancing losses on outnumbered situations of any kind, so bear with me:

 

 

 

step 1:  totalize player minutes (pMin) per team on map turn -- this is simple, once every minute of a mission, you add 1 pMin for each player that's been active on the team for that minute - do this for both teams

 

step 2:  having pMin totals for red and blue, we can now compute the teams force balance factor - this is simple division:  redForceMult:  pMinRed / pMinBlue - do this also for the blue team, inverting the operands there (notice this will result <1 for the outnumbered team, and >1 for the outnumberers)

 

step 3:  multiply team losses by the balance factor -- RedBalancedLosses = RedLosses * redForceMult   then, round out the result before committing it to the campaign records

 

 

 

 

 

this will automatically and seamlessly maintain linear balance for numerical losses at ANY given state of team population - for instance, if red is outnumbered 1x2 - then blue losses will count double, while red losses count half - and vice versa

 

this can also be used to scale the results of the simulated ground forces, eliminating the need for cumbersome systems such as "quorum" whilst providing the desired balancing effect on campaign progress

 

 

but this will NOT, however, prevent the outnumbering team from overwhelming the weaker side, forcing fleet depletion upon its players, and seriously crippling any possibility of opposition, let alone actual attempts...

 

for that, another set of measures is necessary -- an unlimited fallback airplane is necessary, to begin with...

 

another measure:   reduce required CMs for a new plane to one - OR, make missions count even if the pilot crashlands or bails out - survival and escape from capture means one may fly again (happened during the battle of britain to many pilots, some even more than once in a day)

 

 

 

it is perfectly possible, in fact - this has happened yesterday within a few hours of campaign start - that the stronger team will bully the weaker side pilots to such a point where a large number of them become completely "flightless" (out of planes)

 

even with the +1 types being replenished every map turn, when dealing with 3x1 odds, it is very common to takeoff and find oneself under fire right before the wheels are up (specially on the I-16, crank crank crank...)  -- within a few minutes, this will remove all offensive options from a player for that map turn - and for the next hour or so, the team will not have his help, simply because - he's got no planes left

 

once this becomes reality for more and more players, it tips the balance YET AGAIN towards the already numerically stronger team.... and so on...

 

 

TAW's recent measures to promote defensive/non-disposable flying methods have gone too far, and thus created a no-contest, top heavy, massacre machine where whichever side gains the first early advantage will then become an unstoppable juggernaut, and the results are cast henceforth....

 

this has to change - else, I have little doubts that more and more people will simply end up giving up on TAW altogether, as it has become a cruelly frustrating experience, which is enjoyed best by the most masochistic (or sadistic) players out there...

 

 

curiously, I have seen turnarounds happen in the past few campaigns - despite these ruthless odds, whenever the overwhelming team goes offline, and the underdog is allowed to try again, the balance of power can actually shift

 

 

the result is simple, yet frustrating:  TAW is only a competition of which team has more player hours than the other - skills and tactics play second fiddle to free time and timezone location

Edited February 13, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Nibbio 169]

take me as a terrible pilot. What do I do when my hangar is empty and I don't have any possibility to replenish it?

 

I AM a terrible pilot.

After umpteen missions I got only one kill (ah, a really beautiful kill ), but it was not counted probably because I couldn't land it. I was suckered instead into a hopeless fight with half a dozen 109s close to their field.

However, looking at my stats, apparently at least one plane of each type is replenished automatically after 24 hrs, at least I think.

 

As for suspected cheating, I think real talent should be rewarded, and absolutely not punished. And if it is not real talent, as long as it's limited to a few outliers, and the overall balance of the game is not upset, who cares?

 

I'm a single player at heart, and find that multiplayer on an interesting server like TAW is the perfect substitute for the lack of a dynamic campaign in BOX. I consider all you unknown strangers like a way more interesting and realistic form of AI , therefore don't get my panties in a bunch when I'm shot down. Having fun is what counts!