Tactical Air War

[Monostripezebra]

I think there is some good reasoning there, but whil I don´t agree with everything, I would like to pick up some thoughts:

 

there are a lots of things that could be improved or finetuned/perfected in the game, but all we can do is politely ask for those.

 

The other colum of game balancing is player behaviour. Unforunately, influencing this is like herding cats (to paraphrase a famous forum quote).

And I currently see no fix for the fact that a lot of players with not so much playtime are Axis fans.  In the end, we all play for enjoyment and voluntarily, you can´t force or order cooperation or balancing here. However there could be mechanism to experient with.

 

let´s think about this:

 

a) Have a mechanism, where you can only sign up for the war, but not a side. 

Players get assigned sides randomly. This could even be bound to slots, so you could actually have historical numbers favoring one side or the other. You could even sell it as realism, as hardly any soldier hat a choice in what side he had to fight for...

On the bad side, this could rip groups apart,  but on the good side, this would get the comunity together as you would have to encounter new people. You could even go as far as having roles on the battlefield or units assigned... with limited player choice. You know, when you sign up for an armed forces branch the recruiter promises the world, but where you actually end up might or might not be something entirely different

Ok.ok.. that one would probably get hate because it would be too realistic.  ;=P

 

b)have more people ask for good game features, that are realistically easy to implement: Switchable map icons denoting player use and airfields beeing under attack, preferably as separate options:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27971-call-serversided-map-options/

 

C) show more vids and proofs, that under realistic online conditions with netcode and all, the durability gap between red and blue is a bit too big.  I´m totally ok with more durable red planes, but I think the relation is de-facto a bit off.

 

D) think about having ground targets less concentrated. WHile in the real war, marching colums are tight and probably a good target, they could also only be attacked when formed. With the limitations of a flightsim engine (not possible to have thousands and thousands of independent acting units) and the gameplay limits of having not enough flak to represent everyone shooting  while having to accurately cover the targets  that should be attacked...  maybe dispersing and hiding more ground targets would be an option: If you have to search for them, you need to stay in the area longer and are more vulnerable to air action, that would counter the disparity in low-level flak damage resistancy between Il2 and Stuka/Jabos a bit. Off course the locations of hiding places would need to change with maps to not make it too easy, which sadly would mean either a lot of work or scripted placements.

 

 

 

 

I've seen some opinions voiced that Blue should be focused on airfield bombing because they can't compete with Red in armor elimination and should play to their strength of bigger bomb load capability, and I have to come to the conclusion that opinion is spot-on correct. Problem is, based on my readings over the years concerning east front aerial warfare, that tactical approach, and the Red team capabilities forcing that approach, do not even remotely correlate with historical accounts of what actually occurred on the east front. I'd like to make a few points:

 

1) There were numerous airfield raids by both sides, no doubt, but 1) I've never seen any evidence indicating that airfield raids were of a persistent higher priority than supporting ground forces, and 2) airfield raids were focused primarily on eliminating enemy aircraft, and secondarily on destroying fuel and ammunition - not facilities. Often it was advantageous not to destroy the facilities because the attackers might be using that very field themselves within a few days - and in many cases the "facilities" might be a only a couple of small shacks for the command element while maintenance and loading occurred out in the open, or under portable tents, and the pilots and ground crew either slept in slit trenches or were housed in the nearest village. Airfield raids were also generally low-level bombing/strafing attacks, not high level bombing attacks from 4/5000 meters, which is the approach required in TAW for Axis bombers to survive the airfield AAA defenses. 

 

2) The Luftwaffe placed such a high priority on ground attack that it created a Schalchtflieger air arm in Sep 43 under the direction of a General officer. That decision was based on positive evaluations of two years of Ju 87, Bf 110, and Bf 109/Fw 190 Jabo performance engaged in the elimination of enemy ground units, including enemy armor. I am aware that decision was also based in part on the performance of the Hs 129, not currently present in this game, and the highly effective SD 1,2,4, and 10 bomblets, also not currently modeled in the game. 

 

3) The Il-2 destroys Axis armor in TAW at a rate far surpassing historical reality. If you are interested in my full opinion on this subject, I have posted in the History/Aviation/Il-2 Overrated? topic, looking for answers as to what is actually going on to cause this disparity between historical and in-game performance. So far I haven't read any responses that shed much light on the situation. Regardless, this ahistorical in-game phenomenon perpetuates an additional ahistorical phenomenon: it completely nullifies and renders moot any Blue team effort at ground attack themselves. 

 

I'm not one to complain without presenting potential solutions, though my novice proficiency in the IL2 editor precludes me from knowing how many of these solutions are workable in the TAW server environment:

 

1) The highlighting of an airfield under attack with a circular red ring should only be visible to pilots who took off from that airfield, not every single pilot playing. Individual Luftwaffe pilots were generally tuned in to the frequency of their own unit - many times escorting fighters and bombers weren't even on the same channel, let alone in the overall command information loop for everything occurring across several hundreds of km of front. And the majority of VVS aircraft didn't even have communication equipment at all until much later in the war. 

 

2) Likewise, the small dots indicating presence and degree of presence of aircraft on friendly and enemy airfields give away much more information than the average pilot would have been privy to during the conflict. If it is possible to turn off that feature, I suggest doing it. 

 

3) Remove the large aerodromes and hangars on airfields (excepting the very few major ones) and replace them with a couple of tents, more fuel stockpiles, and many, many more static aircraft, the majority of which are simply parked in the open and not behind protective barriers. Since our aircraft disappear when we despawn, the elimination of static aircraft by percentage should limit the number of players able to take off from that airfield. 

 

4) If possible, a good feature would for the defending flak units to be "caught napping" approximately 10 to 15% of the time, for approximately the first 15-20 seconds an enemy aircraft comes in range. 

 

5) Determine the reasons behind the IL-2's ahistorical performance and if possible, make corrections. Currently I am at a loss to explain it, and if the issue is in fact due to unrealistic modeling of the 23mm cannon AP shell, the fix can obviously only come from the developers. I wish I had a solution for this, but I don't. 

 

6) Taking over an enemy airfield by landing eight transports only makes sense if the airfield has already been abandoned, and I recommend eliminating that feature. Air units do not seize and hold terrain. Even if those transports are full of infantry, if the airfield is behind enemy lines a small unit like that would be eliminated quickly. As for paratroopers, if a ground unit cannot reach them by one or two maps they would be wiped out as well. On the other hand, I recommend the enabling of commandos or saboteurs to seize and deny use of ANY airfield for one map duration of time if (Luftwaffe) a certain number of paratroopers are successfully dropped in a prescribed radius as is currently the case, or (VVS) if a certain number of commandos are landed at the nearest unused airfield closest to the targeted airfield. There are many of those dormant airfields on the map. Airfield seizure was not the driving force behind tactical decisions on the eastern front. When enemy forces approached, air units were usually able to quickly fly away and utilize ground transport to vacate support personnel to another airfield behind friendly lines long before the first enemy troops arrived. The air units on both sides supported the ground units; I get the feeling sometimes in TAW the reverse is the case. 

 

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the LG Team for TAW. I make a donation at the end of every campaign, and I highly encourage everyone to do the same. I remember paying anywhere from $3 to $10 per hour to fly online in Air Warrior and Warbirds 20 years ago, and believe me that shit added up pretty fast. To fly for free in a great server, created and maintained by a bunch of guys donating their time and effort for free, is simply awesome. Thank you LG Team - - - - - 

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

Why not just keep the campaign running at all times and rotate through the maps? Then as soon as they have something new release it

A campaign has a beginning and an end. And preferably a winner at the end.

[Monostripezebra]

A campaign has a beginning and an end. And preferably a winner at the end.

 

And that winner is red by default! ;=)

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

Didn't germans win one of the early campaigns?

[Willy__]

EIgonidas' timestamp='1488391613' post='447824'] Didn't germans win one of the early campaigns?

 

I think the very first one, when the plane set was different and there was no BoM planes, axis started with 109G2 CM+1 and after a few combat sorties you earned a 190. All of this on map #1. Also the server was just starting and the population was very low and there was no abuse of Vya 23mm cannons.

 

You could actually see the front moving bit by bit, as it took days to move, having that "tug-of-war", sometimes the germans were gaining territory, sometimes it was the russians. It was quite fun. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Sorry... 7 Maps !,  reds win 4 Maps...and the campaign must end... why after the 5 Map ?

[Willy__]

Because its not best of 5, its the first who scores 5 wins. In theory if red had a score of 4-0 and blue proceded to win 5 in a row, blue would win the campaign.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[[TWB]Pand]

I think the very first one, when the plane set was different and there was no BoM planes, axis started with 109G2 CM+1 and after a few combat sorties you earned a 190. All of this on map #1. Also the server was just starting and the population was very low and there was no abuse of Vya 23mm cannons.

 

You could actually see the front moving bit by bit, as it took days to move, having that "tug-of-war", sometimes the germans were gaining territory, sometimes it was the russians. It was quite fun. 

 

It was actually the 2nd tour where the Germans won.  The 2nd tour averaged 24 pilots throughout the entire campaign, vs almost 17 for this most recent one.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21029-tactical-air-war/?p=390812

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Because its not best of 5, its the first who scores 5 wins. In theory if red had a score of 4-0 and blue proceded to win 5 in a row, blue would win the campaign.

 

???

Example:

Red win 4 Maps and Blue 3 Maps = Reds win the campaign.

Since the blue can no longer win after 4 maps, the campaign should be ended after 4 maps. Not according to 5.

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

???

Example:

Red win 4 Maps and Blue 3 Maps = Reds win the campaign.

Since the blue can no longer win after 4 maps, the campaign should be ended after 4 maps. Not according to 5.

It's actually best of 9. The 7th setup will just be repeated two more times if it comes down to it.

[Roo5ter]

It's actually best of 9. The 7th setup will just be repeated two more times if it comes down to it.

Thanks for that info, I had no clue and this was my 2nd campaign.  It would probably be a good thing if the Map listing said 7/8/9 at the top.

[Haza]

Yeah, sure get personal. That's always a good start for a discussion and lays always a good foundation for upcoming answers.

 

Anyway, I have flown Bombers on both servers in the past.

 

But why I answer to passive aggressive comments? I don't know.

 

Oh come on Sheriff,

 

I raised a perfectly good suggestion/idea to debate in my reply, as well, that perhaps has now been lost owing to my follow on comments to you!

 

However, my comment was clearly not passive aggressive and certainly was not a personal insult.  However perhaps my reply was trying to point out that no matter what planes you make available the majority of players will either pick the best or revert to type (fighter/bomber), as your comments clearly refer to where you talk about guys only flying blue, so perhaps you were clever than me not to point them out although you were certainly making your point.  However, I believe that just making different planes available may not have the desired effect and that something drastic has to be done to over haul the maps, perhaps as suggest by HvB in his post!?

 

However, I will once again, having agreed to previous comments about the subject and now to your original post, will say that even if it is not historically accurate, it would be good to allow more players that perhaps do not have BOM to come and play with BOS in BOM.  Perhaps those who do not have BOM might actually play here and think "Wow, what a great server, I think I will actually buy BOM now".  This would be great for us all and therefore I agree with you on that issue.

 

To sum up, If I have caused you to feel uncomfortable and have made you feel that you had to comment on my comments then I apologise in this open forum. In addition, I have removed the sentence that you deemed to be passive aggressive from my original post.

 

Regards

It was actually the 2nd tour where the Germans won.  The 2nd tour averaged 24 pilots throughout the entire campaign, vs almost 17 for this most recent one.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21029-tactical-air-war/?p=390812

 

He's alive!!!!!!!!

I thought as I hadn't seen you around that you had moved on.

Good to see you back!

Edited March 1, 2017 by Haza

[SC_Manu653]

 

 

He's alive!!!!!!!! I thought as I hadn't seen you around that you had moved on. Good to see you back!

 

Was thinking the same !

[JG5_Schuck]

I know this is a 5 on 7 to win the campaign. But can we make a tug of war... finish all the 7 map. It's sad to not see the later planes.

I know, I know, I know you just have to win the map and bla bla bla . But in a war you fight until the end of the war not of the fight. 

 

I suggested a similar idea way back on the 15th.

I think  it could be implemented, but you would need to utilize the whole map for effect.

[curiousGamblerr]

Thanks Kathon and team for your continued hard work!

[[TWB]Pand]

He's alive!!!!!!!!

I thought as I hadn't seen you around that you had moved on.

Good to see you back!

 

I've been playing a lot of DCS recently!  

 

I have a Nvidia GTX 770, and after the first DirectX11 Patch that was in place for about a week after Christmas, performance in IL-2 was absolutely glorious.  I couldn't have been any happier with the IL-2 product; however, apparently this initial patch was optimized with efficient shaders, which was causing AMD cards to crash.   After that first week, they reverted to inefficient shaders which fixed the AMD cards, but turned my nvidia 770's performance into a big 'ol bag of ass (considerably worse than when I was playing on dx9).  I spent about 10 hours troubleshooting a million different configurations to no avail.

 

Every game I have runs great on my 770 in UWHD--- except IL-2.  It's not the money-- it's the point.  I'll go buy a newer card eventually when the games I play require it, but I can't justify doing so because one game's devs can't/won't put an "efficient shaders" option in the launcher.  I know the game can run amazingly well on my 770 for sure --- I got to see it first hand for one cruel week. 

 

Good hunting gentlemen!  Salute!

[Roo5ter]

Gameplay Suggestions for the Next Campaign

Victory conditions – Right now the only victory condition that truly matters for the Blue team is airfield captures and Red can do either airfield captures but ideally if there is stiff resistance from Blue they simply kill 400 tanks.  HvB already beat this one up a bit so I wanted to offer some brief suggestions and build on top of what he said.
- Raise or eliminate the tank count since it can be reached in a matter of a few days.  It should not be the primary means of success for either army.  Elimination of the tank count could be interesting since it would create a campaign where aircraft and pilots became more valuable as the days dragged on. 
If you truly want to balance tanks as a win condition I think the key is to get them moving.  Attributing to some of the discussion HvB made in his other post on the effectiveness of the IL2 the Russians can obviously blast tanks super easy right now.  Guns are awesome vs static targets and bombs with 5 second fuzes sit right next to the target until they explode.  A moving target makes the gunnery much more difficult and keeps the armor from sitting on top of a live bomb. 

Read this again please
‘Guns are awesome vs static targets and bombs with 5 second fuzes sit right next to the target until they explode.  A moving target makes the gunnery much more difficult and keeps the armor from sitting on top of a live bomb. ‘ T

I understand due to server resources moving targets may not be a viable option.
 
- Place more emphasis on difficult rear area targets.  German and Russian alike could have rear echelon supply and staging areas with trucks, fuel, supplies, depots, and command tents that are juicy but difficult and dangerous targets to hit.  These areas could require spotting as well and if spotted last on the map for the rest of that rotation and one more, giving the team who performed recon a window to bomb it before the command had time to move out

Ju52 – this aircraft adds a ton to the campaign and is quite fun to utilize.  The mechanics for taking over an airfield though should be revisited.  Right now you need 8 He111 or Pe2 transports to take over an airfield after destroying it 100%.  If you drop 60 paratroopers and the airfield is at 100% destroyed you can have up to an 80% chance.  That means you need 5 Ju52 in order to have a chance at capturing and not have a single paratrooper outside the zone.  The Ju52 is also expected to make a return flight whereas the He111 and Peshka are not.

There are a million ways to poke at this problem but overall it shouldn’t take significantly more time to capture an airfield because you are using the Ju52.  Allowing paratroopers a greater chance per 1 landed in the DZ over (X) amount would be reasonable due to the above considerations and the fact 5 Ju52 can fly and drop paratroopers, miss a single paratrooper outside the DZ and have a 0% chance to take it.
One interesting mechanic could be requiring 44 paratroopers (average of 1 miss per aircraft) and 11 MAB containers for a 100% chance to capture the airfield since the paratroopers would obviously need to have supplies to attack an airfield.  It would add more depth since players would need to coordinate and especially protect that one JU52 with the MAB containers on the way to the objective or risk having to do a second run. 

MAB containers could also be used for various other things but I worry about making the Ju52 so viable that it skews the gameplay over to the Blue side by default.  Using MAB containers to resupply tank columns, speeding up tank columns, or strengthening defenses are some ideas that I have toyed with.

Aircraft selection – Throw the Red team a bone in the early maps.  They absolutely should have access to the LaGG early if not the MiG as well.  It could be a possibility that you restrict I16 to 1 without the wing cannons as well to help balance.  As with anything, many ways to go about this to help maintain some semblance of historical parity and game balance.

Map rotation – Map 7 on the list should say 7, 8, 9.  For two campaigns I thought it was pointless to have it best of 5 since the chart clearly shows 7 maps which told me ‘for sure’ that 4 was a victory regardless of what I had heard.  I mean, I know that 4 is more than half of 7 right?  Right?  Wrong!  :D

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Roo5ter

[Haza]

Interesting videos!

 

Thankfully not Papa Smuff at 6.40.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A6UWkK2U4s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZoCkN7Sr0

Edited March 2, 2017 by Haza

[LLv24_Veccu_VR]

Aircraft Flight and Technical Specifications and Operational Details

Started by Han, Nov 05 2016 21:57

 

I-16

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 448 km/h

Climb rate at sea level: 16.7 m/s

BF 109 E7

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 477 km/h

Climb rate at sea level: 14 m/s

 

In the last TAW campaign, I could not escape an I-16, which was on the same level.

The difference from 2,7 m/s +/- 5m/s  are the problem

 

Rata is aerodynamical masterpiece ever built. Flat nose, two propeller blades and so on... Being that kind of masterpiece of aerodynamics it does not bleed its energy as much as crappy E7... By the way have not seen documents of installation of oxygen bottles fo pilot in any ratas war time but here they just fly above 4 k...

[A_radek]

What about tanks? I realize they complicate things but they do ad a dimension to an online war. What if you could spawn in one amongst a tank column under attack. A moving target is more difficult to hit and can also return some healthy mg-fire at attackers.

[A_radek]

Rata is aerodynamical masterpiece ever built. Flat nose, two propeller blades and so on... Being that kind of masterpiece of aerodynamics it does not bleed its energy as much as crappy E7... By the way have not seen documents of installation of oxygen bottles fo pilot in any ratas war time but here they just fly above 4 k...

We hold our breath really well.

 

It's very hard to feel any sympathy for those flying E7 against Ratas or F4 against laggs while complaining the rata/lagg is overperforming.

[Roo5ter]

We hold our breath really well.

 

It's very hard to feel any sympathy for those flying E7 against Ratas or F4 against laggs while complaining the rata/lagg is overperforming.

Unfortunately I think you have missed the point of this game.  

 

The matchup is not what matters it is the historical accuracy since this is simulation.  I don't have any comments whether either aircraft is performing realistic or not because I simply do not know, I just wanted to point out that you are ignoring the entire purpose of a simulation game due to game balance when it has been stated many times over the developers do not have that intent.  Hope that clears up anything that might be a bit unclear since it appears you were not aware.

 

 

[I./JG68_Sperber]

Dear TAW Team, what is now?

 

I cramp 60% of the Campaign E7, and have 1 h with the G2 ! Instead of simply running 7 maps, it is terminated meaningless, since blue has lost anyway. !

 

Then you can make the next campaign only a Planset with E7 vs I-16 and 1 Map and blue have only Kübelwagen Tankdivisionen

[[TWB]Elgonidas]

[A_radek]

My post was unneccesarily smirky and I apologize to Veccu for that.

 

Roo5ster I understand that. But It wasn't an Fm discussion I responded to, it was comments like:

 

"In the last TAW campaign, I could not escape an I-16, which was on the same level"

Or:

"Two days ago with Widu we are chased a damaged (white and grey smoke) LaGG. Guest what - he escaped from two undamaged F4 (as I heard F4 is one of the best planes of BoS/M/K ...)"

 

There is a smudged line between whining and discussing Ac performance, yet there is a lot of the former going on here. Not trying to justify my previous post, only to explain it. It was 100% unconstructive and I regret it.

[[Angels]Bard]

Having only just gotten back into flight simming I found this TAW campaign scratching the itch. I am looking forward to the next session - speaking of which.. any idea when that may be?

On the balance side of things - the F2's 15mm peashooter seemed (to me) the biggest issue facing the Axis pilots - to slow down enough to get tracking shots to make firing effective plays straight into the Red's game, and being unable to effectively neutralise an enemy fighter attacking the fairly brittle Axis ground attack aircraft made things very difficult. Field modification was performed on the eastern front with the F2's to upgun them to 20mm when they experienced the same issues.

Seeing the Red's have more robust ground attack aircraft, and better fighter armament that is fully capable of a quick kill I'm not really surprised at the result.

All that said - I had a blast, even if I had to be satisfied with merely peppering enemy aircraft
 

[Roo5ter]

I'm in absolute love with the 110G2.  Hopefully we can get to it next map assuming I fly Luftwaffe.  I've heard a lot of lackluster responses on it and honestly, I'm not sure why.  The thing is fantastic at killing tanks and truly can fulfill the fighter / bomber role and intercept Peshkas or IL2s with ease.

[FTC_Etherlight]

I pretty much HAVE to fly Axis next time, too. I really didn't want to this campaign, because of the numbers during my time, but in light of what happened, I just have to confirm for myself once more if and what is wrong with the planeset and/or concept of the TAW campaign. Just thinking about flying F2s vs P-40 and F4 vs Lagg-3 just makes me feel dirty already. :D

[Roo5ter]

I pretty much HAVE to fly Axis next time, too. I really didn't want to this campaign, because of the numbers during my time, but in light of what happened, I just have to confirm for myself once more if and what is wrong with the planeset and/or concept of the TAW campaign. Just thinking about flying F2s vs P-40 and F4 vs Lagg-3 just makes me feel dirty already. :D

WTB escort for someone who actually is trying to win the maps.

[666GIAP_Miji]

Thx for the campaign, waiting for a new restart.

[[.ID]Rio-06]

Hello TAW team, first thank you for developing an excellent server, I really enjoyed my time playing here 

Have to navigate, looking for targets, checking for threats (sometimes with wife speaking), do your thing and then navigate back home is a very thrilling and fun experience for me 

However I found that the race for tanks is a difficult one for the LW team, so i'd like to share few of my thoughts to solve this.

 

 - Make points system that count how much cities or airfields one team has at the end of the match, as well as tanks,pilots,aircraft, or other resource.

 - If the match ended without total domination, the system count how much cities/airfields one team has, added with remaining tanks/pilots/aircraft, and then determinate the winner with this number

 - Make destroying/damaging rear warehouse do something more than reduce the number of tank spawn, but also reduce the amount of max tanks

 

And since the main obj at this server is dominate the map, cities/airfields should nett more points than tanks/pilots/aircraft, so holding majority of the map will give more points. 

As for some people suggesting that tanks limit should be gone, IMO it still should be there, otherwise the map won't roll into the next one if the frontline keep going back and forth.

That's all i could think for now, and sorry if it's a half baked idea. Again, thanks for developing this server, looking forward for the next one!

[Piciu]

Hello everyone!
The new year started, as well as our VI season of Tactical Air War. We tried to implement many new things and features, to make the gameplay more and more attractive for you. We believe that we have achieved this goal in large part. At forum you didn`t dissapoint us as well. New propositions, sugestions and corrections was submitted and discussed. That helps us a lot. Thank you guys!
Of course we will not rest on our laurels, beause there`s more work to do.
 

TOP 5 FIGHTERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Piciu]

TOP 5 FIGHTER SQUADS

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Piciu]

TOP 5 BOMBERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Piciu]

TOP 5 BOMBER SQUADS
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[=AD=B777R]

Thnx for diplomas, Cygi!

just one thing... - i'm =AD=, not =DA= (or may be it's just looks like it)

 

And sure as hell, thank you all guys for you work on project. It's awesome.

Edited March 5, 2017 by =AD=B777R

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Thank you for that beautiful diploma.

edit:
Btw is there an overview about the achievable medals?

I see three free spaces for medals there dont know for what.

Edited March 5, 2017 by DerSheriff

[Piciu]

Thnx for diplomas, Cygi!

just one thing... - i'm =AD=, not =DA= (or may be it's just looks like it)

 

And sure as hell, thank you all guys for you work on project. It's awesome.

 

 

Yes, it`s font type. In your medal box indeed it looks like "DA", but believe me it`s "AD"

 

 

Thank you for that beautiful diploma.

 

edit:

Btw is there an overview about the achievable medals?

 

I see three free spaces for medals there dont know for what.

 

 

Ok, I will show you. Here is a full option for Axis and Allies Medal Box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greetings!

Edited March 5, 2017 by =L/R=Piciu

[JG1_Pragr]

This is the i16 vs a bf109E7 under the same (summer) condictions in comparision of levelspeed. Additionally the E7 outlclimbs the I16 by a hughe margin especially at high speeds.

Cheers

 

 

 

This pretty much corresponds to my ingame testing. The main reason why so many pilots complain about the "I-16 faster than E-7" case is that they do not use their radiators. Once radiators are set to some 60 percent the E-7 speed drops significantly and there's no way how it could outrun I-16. And for too many pilots it's easier to say the game is bugged in this regards than to start think of what they're doing wrong.

Edited March 6, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[=GW=xshinel]

 

Hello TAW team, first thank you for developing an excellent server, I really enjoyed my time playing here 

Have to navigate, looking for targets, checking for threats (sometimes with wife speaking), do your thing and then navigate back home is a very thrilling and fun experience for me 

However I found that the race for tanks is a difficult one for the LW team, so i'd like to share few of my thoughts to solve this.

 

 - Make points system that count how much cities or airfields one team has at the end of the match, as well as tanks,pilots,aircraft, or other resource.

 - If the match ended without total domination, the system count how much cities/airfields one team has, added with remaining tanks/pilots/aircraft, and then determinate the winner with this number

 - Make destroying/damaging rear warehouse do something more than reduce the number of tank spawn, but also reduce the amount of max tanks

 

And since the main obj at this server is dominate the map, cities/airfields should nett more points than tanks/pilots/aircraft, so holding majority of the map will give more points. 

As for some people suggesting that tanks limit should be gone, IMO it still should be there, otherwise the map won't roll into the next one if the frontline keep going back and forth.

That's all i could think for now, and sorry if it's a half baked idea. Again, thanks for developing this server, looking forward for the next one!

 

Agree!