Tactical Air War

[Roo5ter]

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. 

I think you missed the part where the kill rate of aircraft was 3x the rate from top player to the 3rd.

 

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

[StG77_Kondor]

I think you missed the part where the kill rate of aircraft was 3x the rate from top player to the 3rd.

 

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Why does he need to post here under pseudonyms? Why is their channel in the TAW TS server the only one that's password protected? Why is fried chicken so good? 

[Roo5ter]

Literally ruining the gameplay and I doubt anyone can come up with a reasonable justification of the data.  Maybe someone could refute the data but the process seemed extremely logical.

[JG1_Pragr]

I was refering to the statement that about 80 per cent of VVS kills are based on better tactics and cooperation. Based on the stats there is no significant difference between Red and Blue in terms of ground kills.

 

Based on my experience get 10 plus tank kills under current setup is nothing impossible for single Il-2. Thus I have no reason to believe that at least one of this two guys do anything what could be called "cheating".

 

Hope I didn't mess it much. English is not my native language

[Roo5ter]

I was refering to the statement that about 80 per cent of VVS kills are based on better tactics and cooperation. Based on the stats there is no significant difference between Red and Blue in terms of ground kills.

 

Based on my experience get 10 plus tank kills under current setup is nothing impossible for single Il-2. Thus I have no reason to believe that at least one of this two guys do anything what could be called "cheating".

 

Hope I didn't mess it much. English is not my native language

I am not sure that a single person had said that these people are cheating to destroy ground targets.

 

If you read back the last couple of pages I think you will find the justification for the accusations and probably find it hard to refute those as well.  Wondering if someone is going to make the attempt or if this is going to continue to be ignored.

[Haza]

He asked for the tactics, smart butt

 

Not being smart butt at all.  It was a subtle reference to a previous post by somebody explaining why blues never win and how red win.   I didn't read anywhere in his post where he asked "what tactics do you need to .....," therefore my reply was saying that he needs to use are tactics as per previous post.  I'm sorry if i was to subtle.

 

Regards

Edited February 22, 2017 by Haza

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

 

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.

 

nope

 

1: AAA locks onto the lead target, so pair or 3 guys together can still decimate the AAA in the first 1-2 minutes. 

2: secretive column is pointless when some peoples icons are enabled

3: penalise the guys that are dieing to the dudes with icons enabled

4: as above.

[Haza]

 

I fell behind the front line, streak remained.

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

 

 

Rall33,

 

I believe that most players here have the integrity and more importantly have the moral fibre to use their correct in game name when in discussion here on the forum.   Therefore, as we all appear to believe that you are somebody else, please do not hide behind a name that you obviously do not use in game as for me it appears rather childish, immature and perhaps unsporting.  Once again you talk about your experiences, yet the name is absent from the stats. from what I can see

 

In addition, I'm not sure why you would even bother having another name as even those who are currently flying both red/blue just annotate their name with a prefix of red or blue so that we all know who they really are.  My post may appear rather trivial, however, if you do not have the *all*s to show who you are, perhaps you are happy to do other things that perhaps others might see as "obtaining an unfair advantage in a gaming sense".

 

I've no idea what the rules are in the server regarding having different names,  but surely being allowed to have a voice in this forum when you have no actually apparent gaming experience to me is not right, unless the name you use here is linked to another account and the admins know who you are.

 

Therefore, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I do not care whether you are the pimpernel, but at least let's have a grown up discussion using our proper in game names.

 

Regards

 

 

In addition, if you fell behind the front line, perhaps there should be a small time penalty to replicate the player escaping back to his own line.  If this is what you are suggesting, perhaps it does have merit, although if you escape and RTB, I believe that your streak should remain.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Haza

[Haza]

Why does he need to post here under pseudonyms? Why is their channel in the TAW TS server the only one that's password protected? Why is fried chicken so good? 

 

Fried Chicken or fried Roo5ter?

[hames123]

Just have no limit on the amount of tanks killed, no army would run out of tanks unless the train stations bringing tanks to the front were destroyed. Maybe next map luftwaffe should bombing their own factories to prevent tanks going out and being killed.

[DeP]

Why is their channel in the TAW TS server the only one that's password protected?

It's obvious to outsiders did not go, saboteurs,  accusers.

 

Rall33,

 

I believe that most players here have the integrity and more importantly have the moral fibre to use their correct in game name when in discussion here on the forum.   Therefore, as we all appear to believe that you are somebody else, please do not hide behind a name that you obviously do not use in game as for me it appears rather childish, immature and perhaps unsporting.  Once again you talk about your experiences, yet the name is absent from the stats. from what I can see

If I do not like you to add me to ignore.

 

nope

 

1: AAA locks onto the lead target, so pair or 3 guys together can still decimate the AAA in the first 1-2 minutes. 

2: secretive column is pointless when some peoples icons are enabled

3: penalise the guys that are dieing to the dudes with icons enabled

4: as above.

1. You do not understand much. Now the purpose of artillery killed 1 flight a plane. What I suggested, to correct this misunderstanding.

2. It has a great meaning.

3-4. A fine is only death. If you jump over an enemy airfield, no fine and no death.

[StG77_Kondor]

 

It's obvious to outsiders did not go, saboteurs,  accusers.

 

 

No other squad or group has their channel password protected. I assume they would also be concerned about 'saboteurs' but all it takes is using any TS overlay program to see who's in channel. 

 

To me it seems as if you are all paranoid about...?

[Haza]

 

 

Haza, on 23 Feb 2017 - 08:41, said: Rall33,   I believe that most players here have the integrity and more importantly have the moral fibre to use their correct in game name when in discussion here on the forum.   Therefore, as we all appear to believe that you are somebody else, please do not hide behind a name that you obviously do not use in game as for me it appears rather childish, immature and perhaps unsporting.  Once again you talk about your experiences, yet the name is absent from the stats. from what I can see If I do not like you to add me to ignore

 

Mk.Mr.X/Rall33,

 

I for one, like many others, have not ignored you here, even though we believe that we know who you are.  Players have answered questions and have engaged with you in an open forum and have done so in a civil manner, however, you always appear very dismissive if players do not agree with you. Therefore I'm not sure what you are on about being ignored or are you saying that you can ignore players but they can't ignore you?

 

I enjoy this server as I believe it is perhaps one of the few populated servers that actual does try and make this sim feel like you are part of a large scale operation.  However, like many I'm sure (not assuming anything) I now believe that this element has been taken away from us by others that are able to "work around" what the game is trying to achieve and know how to beat the system. 

I watched as a group of up to 8 players attacked a red column that required two attacks (almost 3 attacks) to wipe that column out.  However, when you notice that 2 players can eliminate an entire column in one sortie, I believe that players have a right to either ask why or to perhaps know how.

 

regards  

[Haza]

Lost elevator controls and trim in the Ju87 and could only use throttle for pitch control and crashed on finals.  Would have bailed over friendly territory if I had known I had already been labelled "Shoot down". BUGGER!!

 

 

Date Event Damage points Object Type Enemy 23.02.2017 05:48:43 PLANE SPAWNED        

23.02.2017 05:51:46 TOOK OFF

23.02.2017 06:02:38 WAS DAMAGED 0.019 61-K AA  

23.02.2017 06:02:38 WAS DAMAGED 0.981 61-K AA  

23.02.2017 06:02:38 WAS SHOT DOWN   61-K AA  

23.02.2017 06:02:39 DAMAGED 0.520 61-K AA  

23.02.2017 06:02:39 DAMAGED 0.322 arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:39 DESTROYED   61-K AA  

23.02.2017 06:02:39 DESTROYED   arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DAMAGED 1.000 arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DAMAGED 0.553 arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DAMAGED 1.000 arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DESTROYED   arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DESTROYED   arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:02:40 DESTROYED   arf_gsm_2 Fuel  

23.02.2017 06:15:53 WAS DAMAGED 0.055  

23.02.2017 06:15:56 DITCHED

Edited February 23, 2017 by Haza

[JG1_Pragr]

 

It isn't as simple as it seems and isn't always successfull. For example, yesterday we attacked a column, three IL-2 together, hard and difficult . Then has arrived imw123 and has brought down all three. The column was closed only by the end of a session - with self-sacrifice of Mr.X

To attack a column (or any other object with AAA) - one distracts, another attacks - here everything is simple, but it isn't always successful too.

 

I doubt that anybody would say the AA defense over column is weak. It has its own issue (lock on the plane and no switch to real thread) but that is inherited from the game design. Not the map design. What is the matter of difference is that as you said you need up to two or three Il-2s to eliminate AA and tanks subsequently. In fact, once the AA is down even single Il-2 is able to do that job. All with "regular" load (that means the load which can be used for soft target strafing, bombing and even the A2A fight). The closest you could get there on LW side is the Stuka with Bk3,7. But even under perfect circumstances it would be impossible to eliminate all tanks if there is just one KV-1 in column. Moreover such Stuka load is basically useless to anything else. Thus LW need more players or sorties to do the same job.

 

As I posted before we have to deal with the game design based, in the VYa subject, on fabulous claims of tank destroyed rather than on hard data. That's the reason why I think we need some kind of more "strategical" targets which would be aimed on level bomber where LW could have the edge the similar way as VVS has in CAS and tank destruction capability. But this is just a draw. I'm not a campaign designer so I have no idea if it's even possible to do.

Edited February 23, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[DeP]

I doubt that anybody would say the AA defense over column is weak. It has its own issue (lock on the plane and no switch to real thread) but that is inherited from the game design. Not the map design. What is the matter of difference is that as you said you need up to two or three Il-2s to eliminate AA and tanks subsequently. In fact, once the AA is down even single Il-2 is able to do that job. All with "regular" load (that means the load which can be used for soft target strafing, bombing and even the A2A fight). The closest you could get there on LW side is the Stuka with Bk3,7. But even under perfect circumstances it would be impossible to eliminate all tanks if there is just one KV-1 in column. Moreover such Stuka load is basically useless to anything else. Thus LW need more players or sorties to do the same job.

 

As I posted before we have to deal with the game design based, in the VYa subject, on fabulous claims of tank destroyed rather than on hard data. That's the reason why I think we need some kind of more "strategical" targets which would be aimed on level bomber where LW could have the edge the similar way as VVS has in CAS and tank destruction capability. But this is just a draw. I'm not a campaign designer so I have no idea if it's even possible to do.

In German columns many of light tanks. They killed even with the LaGG-3(SHVAK).

The entire column of tanks can be killed in one sortie LaGG-3 and IL-2.

If you put all the tanks PzIV-g is one sortie they do not kill. I believe that the goals are very light. This is a team game, and today targets destroyed by one player.

[DeP]

 

Throughout the mission blue team destroyed tanks in the south, but was not able to destroy them. This proves the inability to use the equipment. No team action. They lost a lot of aircraft in vain, as the tanks do not need to be destroyed. Tanks would destroy artillery.

Now everything is clear. Do not need to change PLANESET in the next war, we will show how quickly destroy tanks.

 

 

[JG1_Pragr]

Maybe LW does the wrong thing when tries to destroy tanks in columns. Since:

 

 

Undamaged artillery defenses can usually survive one attack of an undamaged advancing tank column

 maybe LW should focus on covering the defensive positions and its own tank columns while attacking the red defense at the same time letting the defense to deal with the mass of tanks. Maybe this is the way how to win the map.

Edited February 23, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[Haza]

 

 

Throughout the mission blue team destroyed tanks in the south, but was not able to destroy them. This proves the inability to use the equipment. No team action. They lost a lot of aircraft in vain, as the tanks do not need to be destroyed. Tanks would destroy artillery.

Now everything is clear. Do not need to change PLANESET in the next war, we will show how quickly destroy tanks.

 

 

 

 

Interesting that you failed to mention that you were the only one of two reds playing this game with you being the only one for the majority of this map (#148).  During this time you were able to shoot down 8 aircraft (no other reds shot any blues down), around the Southern tank area, with 3 aircraft shoot down on 2 separate missions, with one mission lasting as long as it took me to do one supply drop (22 mins). Therefore, as we know you were in game it makes me laugh that you have not included your name in the above screen shot or would that have revealed your identity if you had included it? 

 

The Northern tanks were attacked as well, so I'm not sure why you believe that either the tanks to the south were not a legitimate target or that the guys were not co-coordinating their attacks, as they were!  Therefore perhaps you can take your patronising comments about these players and the game in general and post them else where. The Southern red tanks were near a closed airfield and players felt that if these tanks were not attacked, blue would have lost that airfield, therefore, why would they not attack these tanks as the defenses were no guarantee that the airfield would not be over run.

 

In addition, a number of supply runs were undertaken to that airfield to ensure that the damage level was reduced, however, I'm sure you would have us believe that this was incorrect as well?  The tanks in this game appear to be what decides which team wins, therefore even if they were not important on this map, over all they were deemed important to help reach that magical 400 thresh-hold number. However, if you believe that the tanks were not a threat to blue and would not win the airfield for red, why did you basically camp around the tanks rather than taking a bomber and attacking other red targets, such as the defensive positions around the airfield, so that your tanks could take the airfield?

 

It is obvious to a blind man,that you are an able aviator (computer sim nerd), however you have an amazing ability to know what to attack and what not to attack and what individual targets at certain objectives need to be hit to enable that objective to be destroyed with minimum effort.  This to me would suggest that either can see dead people or else you have figured out something that the majority of us have no interesting in trying to do and just want to play a WW2 sim, without making it some self gratification ego trip.

 

However, above everything, I'm beginning to think that you are nothing but a troll who actually enjoys the attention and therefore I will now actively ignore you and treat you with the contempt that I believe that you deserve!  

 

Regards

Edited February 23, 2017 by Haza

[SCG_Darbzy]

The admins really need to do something [Edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.
Violations of this rule will result in the following:
 
17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Edited February 23, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[=IL2AU=chappyj]

[edit]

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Edited February 23, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

I tend towards agreeing with those who want tank kills removed from victory conditions. But I'll also say it's mostly not been fun flying as VVS during prime time lately.

 

 

[Roo5ter]

I tend towards agreeing with those who want tank kills removed from victory conditions. But I'll also say it's mostly not been fun flying as VVS during prime time lately.

 

I still think there needs to be a 20mm LaGG available Map 1 and 2 for VVS to help start people as Russkie who don't have BoM.  0/1 or 1/1 F2 would balance that out easily.

 

I made my Russian account at the end of map 1 after having little interest in playing a vastly larger team but then I saw what was going on with some players and the losses for Germany then I said screw it, I will fly whatever the heck I want.  At least Russia will get some pretty interesting planes in Kuban

[SYN_Haashashin]

Ok guys,

 

Last time I post about this. This has to stop. Next time rules will be enforced. If you have any suspicious take it to the admin over PM and if you got some proof, PM the devs.

 

Haash

 

[Roo5ter]

People are talking about admins but aren't talking about the IL2 team in any way as well.

Some of these people are discussing the -admins of TAW- since this IS the TAW campaign thread.  

[Edited]

 

Devs already use anticheat measures as stated by them months ago. Again if you have proof of this, send them facts by PM to them. Also TAW admins can ban any member at will on their server so if they do not ban anyone is beacuse they dont have proof to do so, I may be wrong about their reasons.


 

Edited February 23, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[Roo5ter]

Is there a way for server admins or specific members of the community entrusted by the TAW team to allow spectating of players who have 'concerning' actions and reputations?

Obviously those people could change their behaviors but in the end it would serve as a good deterrent and way to limit 'concerning' actions.

 

[-SF-Disarray]

If the in game recorder files can be sent to other people to look at that would be one way to do it. It isn't real time monitoring but it is better than nothing.

[Haza]

Gents,

 

I'm not sure if this has been discussed many moons ago, however, would it make things easier or harder if the tanks were mobile?  On another server half the battle/fun is trying to find the tanks then trying to hit them as they disperse off the road, forest track etc.  I realise that owing to the dynamic nature of the maps, the TAW ADMIN server types may not be able to do this, however, perhaps this style of battle would create more of a Close Air Support type game, because as the tanks got closer to an objective then were required stop to commence their attack, they would be on top of us, perhaps creating that type of panic atmosphere.  Anyway, I thought I would suggest it as perhaps the aircraft types etc aren't the real issue but the actual battle realism is lacking and the map in reality is rather static (reference to tanks not the actual game)?

 

In addition, is it possible to have a lone wolf Ju52 type mission to drop special forces way behind enemy lines to disrupt tank movements to the front (Can't think of the film, but similar to where the Germans dressed up as Yanks and turned the sign posts around to confuse the American tanks).  This landing zone would only be visible to the blue team and not the red guys!

 

Happy to withdraw post if subject had already been discussed and dismissed.

 

Regards

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited February 23, 2017 by Haza

[Roo5ter]

I think the issue with mobile tanks is the AI using server resources.  Obviously the dev team has been doing fantastic things lately with optimization though.  I do agree it would be cool.

[Haza]

I think the issue with mobile tanks is the AI using server resources.  Obviously the dev team has been doing fantastic things lately with optimization though.  I do agree it would be cool.

 

OK, being mechanical, I never even thought about the AI resources.

 

Cheers for the reply.

[curiousGamblerr]

The admins really need to do something [Edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Lol Darbzyyy what did you do? Bad Aussie, bad!

[ACG_pezman]

Lol Darbzyyy what did you do? Bad Aussie, bad!

It wasn't even that bad.  He just said the "C" word where you see the "[EDITED]" comment.

 

Got to say, it's been fun reading this thread for the past couple of weeks.

[Roo5ter]

It wasn't even that bad.  He just said the "C" word where you see the "[EDITED]" comment.

 

Got to say, it's been fun reading this thread for the past couple of weeks.

Except when the page count moves backwards

[19//Moach]

let it be known that all claims about user behavior and their "methods" in this thread are, at least when made by me, directed specifically at TAW server admins, and does not imply expectations or requests upon developers in any way...

 

this must be made clear, as it is the server admin's responsibility to deal with these "grey area" cases where undue conduct is largely suspected in consensus, albeit without physical evidence of the fact

 

 

again, the burden-of-proof paradigm cannot be fully exercised here, to do so is to exonerate every cheater in every online game, as gamers do not have the luxury of obtaining a warrant to retrieve and inspect another player's computer - which would be the only way to attain REAL proof

 

we must instead rely on common sense and our best judgement, and sometimes that could lead to accusations (perceived or intended) in the course of our discussions - personally, I do not mean to accuse - only to provide server admins with the logic from which my suspicions can be deduced. 

 

 

this is not intended to "excuse" any past claims by myself or others which have been edited - but to try and redirect the topic of discussion onto the matter at hand and away from what could easily degrade into a conspiracy-theory minded exchange of fallacies and retorts based on feelings before facts... which would end with the thread locked, and then negate any notions (regardless of merit) inside

 

 

so don't go there - don't directly accuse players - that's rude

 

just point out the facts that make your case, and how you find them suspicious, in a way that can help others see it too -- then make any individual-specific remarks to TAW admins exclusively

 

 

also, calling out individual names makes it impossible to use "blind consensus" as a tool for isolating a suspect - if everyone suspects one same undisclosed individual, then the convergence of their conclusions from the clues at hand is in itself another (very powerful) clue -- there's even a popular board game that's somewhat based on this process

 

 

so there is no sense to openly point fingers,  even though it is very tempting to do so,  seeing campaign results that can only be explained by the kind of magic they warn you against in Hogwarts

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Roo5ter]

You most certainly aren't wrong in the least bit.  I think the only caveat here is the data was put up a couple of days ago and we haven't heard any response yet.  I guess we will see what the future holds.

 

Well said Moach.

[DeP]

[19//Moach]

series of recommendations for the next TAW campaign (which I believe should address most common gameplay issues besides those related to magic)

 

 

 - add new feature:   sharing planes across players -- often, someone needs a plane they don't have, and his wingmate has that same plane which he doesn't need -- sharing aircraft would encourage teamplay to overcome fleet penalties - this could be done over the website, via a link next to each plane in the receiving player's "hangar" page that when clicked would hand over one of that type from your fleet to his (as long as the sender has any available)

 

 - change:  any flight with a GK/AK should count as a combat mission, unless the pilot is killed, captured, or disco -- this should benefit all in a way that is fair, and rewards victories to an extent that measures up to balance the harsh punishment given to even partial defeats (or sheer bad luck, in some cases)

 

 - change:  fighter patrols should add one CM for every 15 minutes flown, regardless of victories - this would very strongly encourage patrolling when faced with unfavourable odds (i.e. heavily outnumbered) - and would also reduce the "transport grinding" situation which afflicts so many players - defensive fighter patrols must be encouraged, and this simple change would achieve that

 

 - plane set:  use historical data for plane availability on each map - for instance: lagg-3, MiG and 109F were historically available to their operators by the time of operation barbarossa - the fleet is currently reduced in a very sub-optimal way (the lack of the LaGG is what stops players who don't own BoS from joining in the first half of the campaign - they simply can't fly)

 

 

as for the "magic problem" - this shall be dealt with in private messages, as to avoid finger pointing and such controversy

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Moach

[SCG_Darbzy]

The admins really need to do something [Edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

 

What'd I say?!

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Darbzy

[JG1_Pragr]

I would like to see some higher benefit for those flying paradrops with Ju52 too. What they get now is ridiculously low given the amount of time their mission usually need and the dangers they have to face.

[JG1_Pragr]

I tend towards agreeing with those who want tank kills removed from victory conditions. But I'll also say it's mostly not been fun flying as VVS during prime time lately.

 

 

 

It seems to me like few days ago many pilots willing to join VVS to balanced the numbers in EU prime time switched back to LW. Reason? Tough to say but I think it's related to the fact that when numbers are even during the EU prime the front line is moving slowly to one or the other side. Then there came the low population time and very few players joining entirely the VVS side can win the map almost by them self. Thus with balance numbers in LW(EU) prime time the whole campaign would be over in about one week. Your population statistics can be used to proving this tendency. When numbers were even between late 18 February and early 20 February the map #2 was closed in about 24 hours. 

 

Thus to prolonged the campaign and balance the low pop influence bigger effort needs to be made during the other part of the day.

 

Last 24 hours show some difference. The low-pop VVS advantage was equalized/eliminated by few pilots flying LW. Later not even the EU prime wasn't unbalanced as much as it was for several days ago. It's tough to say if this gonna be a trend in following days. I hope so. Just because if another map would be won by few pilots racking up enough tank kills to reach the limit I expect we will see even bigger LW numerical dominance over EU prime time. And that would be the worse scenario for the server itself.

Edited February 24, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr