Tactical Air War

[Roo5ter]

Fighter flight time would make a lot more sense if you are looking at kills since there is a debate seems to be going on here.

[curiousGamblerr]

Fighter flight time would make a lot more sense if you are looking at kills since there is a debate seems to be going on here.

 

Totally true, good call out. More time consuming to pull from the website tho. Perhaps someone more concerned with cheating than myself will do so.

[II./JG1_Razwald]

 I've been thinking about dipping my feet into multiplayer. The only reason I haven't is the difficulty in spotting aircraft but I said that in ROF and I got better with time.

 

This is the server that peaks my interest. I posted a couple questions a couple days ago. That my have gotten lost while you guys debated strategies the number of this and the number of that.  While paging through the forum and looking at the TAW website I learned a couple things and my questions have changed.

 

One question I still have is the squared city with no airfield. What is it? Is there any advantage attacking etc?

 

My initial thought was I could load up a bomber and attack airfields or the factory. Or a possible attack on the front line emplacements or hunt for convoys.

 

It seems looking at the complaints and the stats on the TAW website that the side that takes out the most tanks wins the map. I'm not a tank buster so I'm of no use there.

 

So now my new question is. Is going for the factory worth it? Or if I log on am I better off going after emplacements and airfields.

 

I'm not a tank buster so I'm of no use there.

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

 

When discussing whether they are cheating, it certainly does. We all know where the ground targets are, it's accusations of knowing where air targets are that Harry was responding to I believe.

 

Fighter flight time would make a lot more sense if you are looking at kills since there is a debate seems to be going on here.

 

Sure, its the relevant area of consideration but the basic KPH stat is meaningless without further refining. It's being trotted out above to say 'see nothing wrong keep calm and play on' without consideration of the total hours spent in an A2A role. I think we can pretty comfortably say that when people make a sortie in the air superiority role they make different decisions on:

fuel

altitude

aircraft configuration

and then they behave differently: they look (and this is the main point on the topic of legit play) for air targets. they pursue air targets and they prioritise air targets.

 

now the issue is, you cannot refine the stat without making some assumptions. Which hours count and which kills count?

 

Fighter flight time is still too basic. I16s can carry rockets in TAW from memory?  109s Jabo?

 

also, i'm no expert but I see no way to quickly refine or derive filters on sorties etc in the stats.

Edited February 22, 2017 by =WFPK=chappyj

[Roo5ter]

I didn't say it was what needed to happen I just said it would make more sense, in comparison to the previous numbers.  That is all I said.

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

ok so I just went through and made some basic assumptions.

must be in a fighter.

must be longer than 5 minute flight.

must have no ground kills

and I did this off a sample size of first(current) page of sorties

 

Top A2A killer

recent KPH 3.3

3rd top A2A

recent KPH 1.17

 

that's nearly 3 times greater.

 

 

I didn't bother with 2nd top because of association with the top A2A killer (teamspeak) . Both individuals play in the same timezone (by my observation on the server)  Both individuals I would classify as being primarily fighter oriented although the top ranked player has been doing more ground missions than the 3rd ranked and that results in the KPH stats at a basic level looking similar.

take that information and go back to moach's previous posts about statistics and the bell curve.

Edited February 22, 2017 by =WFPK=chappyj

[Roo5ter]

ok so I just went through and made some basic assumptions.

must be in a fighter.

must be longer than 5 minute flight.

must have no ground kills

and I did this off a sample size of first(current) page of sorties

 

Top A2A killer

recent KPH 3.3

3rd top A2A

recent KPH 1.17

 

that's nearly 3 times greater.

 

 

I didn't bother with 2nd top because of association with the top A2A killer (teamspeak) . Both individuals play in the same timezone (by my observation on the server)  Both individuals I would classify as being primarily fighter oriented although the top ranked player has been doing more ground missions than the 3rd ranked and that results in the KPH stats at a basic level looking similar.

take that information and go back to moach's previous posts about statistics and the bell curve.

Thank you very much sir.  This seems like a pretty logical data set.

 

I would say the burden of proof is on the accuser.  Now that the data is out there....

 

 

[JG1_Pragr]

I'm not really trying to take a "side" in this, but when someone's complaining that the red outnumber the blues at one single point in time, I have to show them the big picture.

If you reacted on my post, then you either didn't read it or just have no idea what are we talking about. 

 

The whole discussion starts when I wrote that during EU morning time there were often five to eight players on red side with zero to max two player on blue side (btw, that's something what can be seen on your population statistics) and that they are able to pill up like 10+ tank kills per sortie virtually unopposed. I post my opinion that this situation influenced the map #1 result by most. In the post with the population screen shot I posted before I wrote that there is general advantage in blue numbers. I just wanted to show to Rall33 that picture of player numbers in one particular time doesn't have any relationship with the overall picture. In example in the case in question, the picture of 13 vs 2 for blue yesterday morning (EU) doesn't mean that this is the common situation.

 

I wish I knew what these other IL-2s are doing to kill so many tanks. I can only seem to kill maybe one tank with bombs and then at most two more with cannons.... And that's only if the AAA is taken out first.

 

The last two IL-2 missions I flew, I lost both planes and only took out 2 tanks I think 

My experience is based just on Quick Mission still can serve as comparison. I'm able to eliminated three moving PzIII/IV type with less than half of ammo load just with VYa cannons and all AP load. I didn't check it to the detail but these tanks usually need about 8 to 10 hits to be burned. Pz38t is total "crap" in this terms as it seems it explode after like two hits. I don't say it's easy mode. I just say it's possible. Thought the 30 mm armor should be beyond the ability of VYa for range beyond 100 m it seems that round penetration is unaffected by the distance. I use 300 m convergence and have no problem. Actually I have suspicion that the whole round vs armor issue in game is made on simplified basis "type of round does certain percentage of damage for specific tank". But I can be wrong.

 

But I know I'm strange. I can kill the KV-1 with single SC50 too. It needs to be near perfect drop, it's harder than with Bk3,7 but again it's possible. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[JG1_Pragr]

...

One question I still have is the squared city with no airfield. What is it? Is there any advantage attacking etc?

...

I'm not sure about but I think the square icon on web shows that there is a supply column somewhere on map around that area. At least it looks to me like this for last couple of days. I can be wrong anyway.

 

 ...

So now my new question is. Is going for the factory worth it? Or if I log on am I better off going after emplacements and airfields.

Number of tanks in every column depends on factory damage level. I suppose that less tanks in column means that even damaged defense position can deal with undamaged attack force. Thus I would say attacking factory/rear area depot has some impact on the game. 

There was a discussion about it could be counter-productive because less tanks in Soviet columns mean that German can't win for tanks but as they can't anyway in this scope (tank kill number) hitting the rear depot seems as good option from general point of view.

 

I hope it helps. 

[JG1_Pragr]

No at all

I was there, on the red side. The map was lost two days before. Red tried to resist, but without hope. It remained only to grab the last airfield. Not at once it was clear that Reds are close to the execution of one of the winning conditions. Blues had two days to destroy the last target. Two days!

Something tells me that if it were not tanks, it would be destroyed all planes or all pilots ))))

You have no excuse to first map loss.

I tend to agree with you in this subject. The map #1 should be over before the tank kill limit was reached.

We can discuss about how feasible is to capture the AF by planes (since as I understand the manual you have to capture the AF, destroyed it only  is not a winning condition) under the current condition and how much of organisation and cooperation would need it (since you need 8 bombers with escort) but it could be done. In no way it's job that can be done by less than ten players even if they would face two or three dedicated opposing fighters. With more defenders online the number of attackers increase exponentially.

 

Now compare it with the situation when four to five fighter/attacker on VVS side can lopsided the map by tank/defense elimination if facing one or two players.

 

I don't say capturing the AF by planes is impossible. I say it's more complex task involving more players than "simple" task of column/defense elimination on VVS side. And in my opinion this is important reason (though not the only one) why there is relatively small German advance during their numerical prime time (even if there is 40 vs 15 situation) in compare with what Soviets are able to achieve during low population time.

Edited February 22, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[Sputnik77]

I checked stats of one of the best a2g IL-2 pilots there and it is stunning.

 

What is the way to kill 23 vehicles in 13minutes, which consist 5 20mm-37mm AAA trucks, 5 tanks and rest trucks?

It is so impressive, the 5 AAA vehicles were killed in 1min 49s. The first 2 flak38 with bombs given damage logs and rest with cannons.

 

How can you even fly straight over a column consisting 5 AAA trucks, don't take any damage, bomb 2 of them in first pass, then in next 1 minute cherry pick remaining 3 AAA's strafing them with cannons one by one and still do not receive any damage?

 

This is amazing I wish to see the video of similar action as maybe I am doing something wrong. AAA to me is very accurate and deadly and the only way I found out now in Ju-87 and BF110 to kill AAA in column is to toss the 500kg/250kg bombs from above 1km altitude after doing S-turns to avid fire first and then run away from remaining vehicles straight after release. Still being quite often damaged and resulting in no more than 3 soft vehicle kills.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Sputnik77

[Haza]

I checked stats of one of the best a2g IL-2 pilots there and it is stunning.

 

What is the way to kill 23 vehicles in 13minutes, which consist 5 20mm-37mm AAA trucks, 5 tanks and rest trucks?

It is so impressive, the 5 AAA vehicles were killed in 1min 49s. The first 2 flak38 with bombs given damage logs and rest with cannons.

 

How can you even fly straight over a column consisting 5 AAA trucks, don't take any damage, bomb 2 of them in first pass, then in next 1 minute cherry pick remaining 3 AAA's strafing them with cannons one by one and still do not receive any damage?

 

This is amazing I wish to see the video of similar action as maybe I am doing something wrong. AAA to me is very accurate and deadly and the only way I found out now in Ju-87 and BF110 to kill AAA in column is to toss the 500kg/250kg bombs from above 1km altitude after doing S-turns to avid fire first and then run away from remaining vehicles straight after release. Still being quite often damaged and resulting in no more than 3 soft vehicle kills.

 

Tactics.

[hames123]

It is unrealistic for a campaign to be decided on number of tanks killed, and in fact, losing trucks was much more deadly to the Soviets than losing tanks, because they had a large shortage that was helped with lend-lease, but losing over 1000 trucks or 200 trains would harm the Soviet Union more than losing 400 tanks would to either side. So, make there be no victory conditions based on the amount of tanks, planes and pilots lost, and make the map be won by capturing all objective. Or, you could just give a blue victory after they kill over 700 Soviet trucks. Also, just allow both sides to be able to kill airfields and keep them unoperational for the rest of the map, when over 80% of the airfield objects are killed. Capturing airfields with planes is completely unrealistic, and hardly ever happened.

Edited February 22, 2017 by hames123

[JaffaCake]

I wish Germans could destroy their own factories to reduce the number of tanks they have so they don't lose so quickly

[curiousGamblerr]

No at all

I was there, on the red side. The map was lost two days before. Red tried to resist, but without hope. It remained only to grab the last airfield. Not at once it was clear that Reds are close to the execution of one of the winning conditions. Blues had two days to destroy the last target. Two days!

Something tells me that if it were not tanks, it would be destroyed all planes or all pilots ))))

You have no excuse to first map loss.

I mean, I was there too, also playing red. I'm not making excuses. We were getting slaughtered in the air since the first day, so much so that TWB switched sides IIRC.

I wish Germans could destroy their own factories to reduce the number of tanks they have so they don't lose so quickly

This is a hilarious idea.

[Scojo]

Tactics.

He asked for the tactics, smart butt

[II./JG1_Razwald]

I'm not sure about but I think the square icon on web shows that there is a supply column somewhere on map around that area. At least it looks to me like this for last couple of days. I can be wrong anyway.

 

Number of tanks in every column depends on factory damage level. I suppose that less tanks in column means that even damaged defense position can deal with undamaged attack force. Thus I would say attacking factory/rear area depot has some impact on the game. 

There was a discussion about it could be counter-productive because less tanks in Soviet columns mean that German can't win for tanks but as they can't anyway in this scope (tank kill number) hitting the rear depot seems as good option from general point of view.

 

I hope it helps. 

Thanks

[Scojo]

I was under the impression that what mattered was the tank strength vs defense position strength at the end of each mission. Having a limit of total tanks makes that part of the missions completely moot, it seems.

 

What if we didn't have a tank limit? There would still be incentive to hit tanks and defenses, and it would also give some meaning to hitting factories.

 

Or we could make overall tank numbers directly related to hitting factories. So say you have a certain amount of tanks for each mission. Each factory destroyed reduces that number for each map by some small percentage, that way early on, it doesn't matter too much, but it will eventually build.

Or at the very least leave things as they are, but change factories so that a factory kill ALSO lowers total tank numbers in addition to removing those tanks from the next mission

[HR_Tumu]

Sputnik, for my is a skill question. ( tank attack results )

 

With soft wind and NO enemys covering target, whit help of one fighters ( for distract AAA ) , one skilled player,  can manage to kill  5 AAA  in few minuts and  waist rest of ammo ataking tanks....

 

I Repeat, sure reds have very good weapons for tank kill... but its attitude question for me. Reds attack and Blues NO defence, result, masacre tanks.

 

My last mission  last night we start ( reds ) outnumbered , but in 5 minuts  we are equal, at end mision reds have superiority.  First red sortie was clear a tank attack going to Zhutovo base.... blues have gromoslavka base  ( same distance ) operative..... on first mission, just start, 4 il2 and 3 Lagg are over tanks attaking ... i espected some oposition.... but.... only one blue come to defence tanks.... alone, ( remember at start mission quorum was equal )  i know this pilot its a very, very good pilot , but he cant do nothing vs 3 lagg and 4 il2....

 

I want apply next logical.. i try explain , i think its important.

 

- Tanks are on ground level.

 

- Planes travel by air.

 

- Russian have better ground atack weapon.

 

- Germans have better air to air combat weapons.

 

- And now the  key : Who control air space control ground atack no???  I mean if blue con do air superiority ( and have  best weapons for do this ) blues can evitate ground atack i think.

 

Then, blues have a way for defence tanks.

 

 

For talk about attack red tanks i need fly on blue side and test weapons again ... but the first point u can apply here again.... 

 

 

 

Sorry all for my english. thx.

[Sputnik77]

Okay thanks for insight @RedEye_Tumu

 

 

I suspected that another aircraft is needed to distract AAA which in the end moves everything down to team-play tactics that deal best with poor AAA AI.

 

The fact that reds completely eat blue tanks is in ~80% a result of better team play. In the end Blue also have valid means to destroy tanks and while red capabilities in this case are higher it is not that huge difference. Bf-110 can carry 2x500kg bombs so a team of 2x110, 2x87 and 3x109 should decimate a tank column equally well as a team of 4xIL-2 and 3xLAGG in your above example.

 

Is currently AAA locking on closest target and keeps engaging it until it leaves the "Engagement Range"? It doesn't change it's target to the highest threat based on airplane's attitude, range and alt?

[curiousGamblerr]

Is currently AAA locking on closest target and keeps engaging it until it leaves the "Engagement Range"? It doesn't change it's target to the highest threat based on airplane's attitude, range and alt?

 

I've seen this mentioned a few times, there was also a thread recently. I've never done any tests, but in at least one instance in this TAW campaign I was diving on an AAA that was firing at me, when suddenly it changed targets to another aircraft and let me dive on it undisturbed and kill it. Maybe that was a fluke and most times it doesn't switch targets, but in this case it definitely did, and to its detriment.

 

But anecdotes don't mean much. While in math proof by counterexample is a valid strategy, in software there are bugs so a single counterexample doesn't necessarily debunk a claim entirely. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[Scojo]

 

I suspected that another aircraft is needed to distract AAA which in the end moves everything down to team-play tactics that deal best with poor AAA AI.

 

 

 

Is currently AAA locking on closest target and keeps engaging it until it leaves the "Engagement Range"? It doesn't change it's target to the highest threat based on airplane's attitude, range and alt?

The team AAA tactic has been a common strategy for a while and it works so well because of what you hinted at in your question. The AAA does lock onto the first in range and keeps it until it leaves.

 

That's my experience at least

Edited February 22, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[JG1_Pragr]

...

- Germans have better air to air combat weapons.

...

 

I'm not sure about that as the fighter plane set seems very well balanced on current maps. There was an edge on map #2 for LW heaving F-2 vs P-40 and I-16. But that map last for less than 24 hours. Current plane set with F-2 vs MiG-3/LaGG-3 is balanced well. IMO the VVS fighters (especially MiG) has no disadvantage vs F-2 and the winning chance is on equal. As any other 109 the F-2 seems to be highly vulnerable to even ShKAS despite not speaking about anything heavier.

 

 

I was under the impression that what mattered was the tank strength vs defense position strength at the end of each mission. Having a limit of total tanks makes that part of the missions completely moot, it seems.

 

What if we didn't have a tank limit? There would still be incentive to hit tanks and defenses, and it would also give some meaning to hitting factories.

...

According to TAW manual the undamaged defense should deal with one undamaged tank column. Thus with general VVS advantage in tank killing ability the removing of tank kills limit would change a little. As I understand the rules there are two ways how map can be won except the tank/pilot/plane limits. Either one side capture the AFs/towns through the tank column attacks or capture them "manually" by transport planes landing on AF. LW cannot compete the rate of tank column destruction thus the only way how to win the map is the latter. That means you need many players to organize bombing attack on AF to damaged it for at least 90 per cent to be ready for capture the next mission. I have no idea how many people can achieve such task. But I expect it would be about eight to ten (fighters and bombers). Then they have to wait for the map rotation to be able to capture previously damaged AF. After rotation they would have spawn eight transports, get some other people to cover them to be successful in capture. In general it means there is a need for at least ten to twelve cooperating pilots during about three hours. And I don't consider defending fighters. With any kind of decent opposition the escorting force should increase in numbers significantly.

 

Closest we get to such situation was two days ago when we tried to organized  the para drops to Northern drop zone. We were able get there four Ju52 (each sortie last for about 40 minutes). After the fourth guys get there red guys found out what we are about to try and focus on drop zone defense. From that point it was impossible to get there another Ju52 since no cover can prevent "suicidal" fighter from determined attack against easy prey such Tante Ju is in fact. Even in case of successful para drops nothing is sure. There is still only 80 per cent probability that paras get the AF damaged at 100 per cent. I think that capturing the AF by transport planes would be similar case. Not impossible but way harder than focusing on CAS support of AI fight.

[Scojo]

According to TAW manual the undamaged defense should deal with one undamaged tank column. Thus with general VVS advantage in tank killing ability the removing of tank kills limit would change a little.

True, I can agree with you there

 

But what if destroying factories were changed so that it removed tank numbers from the total tank allotment?

 

With the larger bombs, Germans can potentially kill factories with fewer planes/sorties than Russians can and that might help some, no?

[DeP]

If the BF-110G2  extradite at the beginning of the war, it has leveled chance to destroy the tanks?

Perhaps the number of tanks should be increased?

[JG1_Pragr]

True, I can agree with you there

 

But what if destroying factories were changed so that it removed tank numbers from the total tank allotment?

 

With the larger bombs, Germans can potentially kill factories with fewer planes/sorties than Russians can and that might help some, no?

Actually I was thinking about something similar to old ADW where each side could win the map through "resources". If I remember that right there were three type: fuel, ammo and spare parts. If something like this could be introduces I think it would balance the game through provide the LW with area where it has the edge. 

 

If this is not possible, decreasing the number of paras needed to capture the AF could be the temporary solution for next campaign. But this would need some "brainstorming" 'cause what may look good on the paper could be horribly bad on real server. 

[Geleitzug]

If the BF-110G2  extradite at the beginning of the war, it has leveled chance to destroy the tanks?

Perhaps the number of tanks should be increased?

It should definitely be increased or even abolished at all... it's just three tanks to go and blue will loose the current map as well !

[Sputnik77]

I think the total number of tanks should not be static then.

 

As the only way to transport tanks to front was rail, I think there should be 3-4 heavily defended train stations at each side that affect "Tank Resupply Ability".

 

So lets say we have 400* tanks straight away and tank resupply ability which in game mechanics translates to max number of tanks supplied to the front line in each mission.

 

If all 4 rail stations are undamaged - each side can get max 20* tanks resupplied each mission. Destroying supply lines reduces this ability.

 

Then if one team has completely wiped out 20 tanks in one mission, those loses will be replenished in next one give the supply line is 100% running.

 

Each destroyed train station would be re-built within next I dunno 6 hours or maybe a day*.

This would somehow reduce the ability to decimate all tank forces of one side.

 

* numbers are only for example purposes and should be tweaked accordingly

[StG77_Kondor]

Well, there is another one. GJ Red. 

While I was at work yesterday following this thread and the 'war' I took note of tank destructions per side. It jumped around a bit but stayed within reach for blue. 
 

Mission #124 (# of tank kills)

Red - Blue 
273-224

 

Mission #125

285-232

 

Mission #126
285-245

 

Mission #127

285-253

 

Mission #128
291-263

 

Now look at the totals now. In less than 24 hours Red have managed to get to 400 tanks. 

No matter how quickly Blue can try to disable and capture Red AFs. If Red wants to win a map by killing 400 tanks. They can do it in ~48 hours (as they did Map 2). What a shame. I love this server but why put in time and effort to try to win? It's one thing if we were doing 1944/45 plane sets and ground conditions. But we've been flying with the supposedly superior Blue planeset. 

[Roo5ter]

 

The fact that reds completely eat blue tanks is in ~80% a result of better team play.

 

 

 

That and blue aircraft mysteriously explode out of the sky as was discussed last night.

[DeP]

There is a proposal:

1. Increase the number of anti-aircraft guns in the artillery, as well as to oblige to destroy all the bunkers.The armored cars replaced by guns. The armored cars easily destroyed!

2. Make an extra column of vehicles going 10 km behind the tanks.

This is a column of tanks supply. Make it a secretive. Finding column at an altitude of 500 meters at most, for the detection of complications. With the destruction of the column, the tanks did not move forward in the next mission. With the destruction of tanks, but without destroying the tower, in the next mission tank column will consist of 7-8 tanks. And added to the destruction of only half of the tanks in the site statistics.

3. Prevent take off at any aircraft losses, and not only when death.

4. Any drop in the pilot line of the front-death.

[Scojo]

 

3. Prevent take off at any aircraft losses, and not only when death.

4. Any drop in the pilot line of the front-death.

 

Huh?

[DeP]

Huh?

3. landed at the airport, wait 300 seconds

4. He was captured behind enemy lines. DEATH!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Rall33

[Scojo]

Captured is a pilot loss, no?

 

And I fail to see how making someone wait 300 seconds would improve anything at all

[DeP]

Captured is a pilot loss, no?

 

And I fail to see how making someone wait 300 seconds would improve anything at all

I fell behind the front line, streak remained.

Shoot down the enemy and he immediately takes off and kills you, it is not correct.

[StG77_Kondor]

 

There is a proposal:

1. Increase the number of anti-aircraft guns in the artillery, as well as to oblige to destroy all the bunkers.The armored cars replaced by guns. The armored cars easily destroyed!

2. Make an extra column of vehicles going 10 km behind the tanks.

This is a column of tanks supply. Make it a secretive. Finding column at an altitude of 500 meters at most, for the detection of complications. With the destruction of the column, the tanks did not move forward in the next mission. With the destruction of tanks, but without destroying the tower, in the next mission tank column will consist of 7-8 tanks. And added to the destruction of only half of the tanks in the site statistics.

3. Prevent take off at any aircraft losses, and not only when death.

4. Any drop in the pilot line of the front-death.

 

Interesting suggestions. But none that do anything to change the 400 tank limit. If anything, these suggestions just help certain pilots maintain their uber streaks. 

 

Not surprised coming from you 'Rall' . Maybe we can get you a girlfriend so you and your friends can at least let a map last more than 4 days . 

Edited February 22, 2017 by StG77_Kondor

[DeP]

 Maybe we can get you a girlfriend so you and your friends can at least let a map last more than 4 days . 

Agreed!

[Scojo]

 

I fell behind the front line, streak remained.

Shoot down the enemy and he immediately takes off and kills you, it is not correct.

 

Ok then I agree with your first statement...

 

The second however, I can't get behind. The wait time wouldn't help that much unless it were longer than 3 minutes and on top of that, him coming back kind of depicts more fighters being dispatched to a problem area anyway, something that you would want to do whether it's the same pilot in the cockpit or not. You have to remember in this game, we're EXTREMELY limited in pilots compared to reality

[StG77_Kondor]

Ok then I agree with your first statement...

 

The second however, I can't get behind. The wait time wouldn't help that much unless it were longer than 3 minutes and on top of that, him coming back kind of depicts more fighters being dispatched to a problem area anyway, something that you would want to do whether it's the same pilot in the cockpit or not. You have to remember in this game, we're EXTREMELY limited in pilots compared to reality

The way I'm reading it is, he doesn't like to have to face someone he just shot down 5 minutes later in the air. Allowing him to patrol inside enemy territory longer. In the end, it gives him less targets to shoot down, but keeps air cleaner for him and his friends to do unspeakable things to our Blue tanks. As I said, this does nothing to help the way current maps are playing out. It solves a problem that doesn't exist - pilot lives. 

[JG1_Pragr]

...

The fact that reds completely eat blue tanks is in ~80% a result of better team play. In the end Blue also have valid means to destroy tanks and while red capabilities in this case are higher it is not that huge difference. Bf-110 can carry 2x500kg bombs so a team of 2x110, 2x87 and 3x109 should decimate a tank column equally well as a team of 4xIL-2 and 3xLAGG in your above example....

Sorry but what kind of superior team play are you talking about? In fact there are two guys on VVS side pilling up 1/3 of all ground kills. In case of map #1 and #3 they "made decision" it's time to win and achieved almost 70 tank kills together in about 12 hours on each map. Without their impact both maps would be moving to the East slowly but steadily (because of overall LW numerical advantage). 

 

Personally I would like to see if these guys would be able to achieve the same results and same impact if flying on LW side. 

 

Btw, without these two guys achievements the ground kills ratio between German and Soviet would be almost in line with the average player number ratio.

Edited February 22, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr